God does NOT exist.. [Archive]

Dark_Magneto

2004-04-30, 20:35

quote:Originally posted by Metalligod:

Aaaant, wrong. I'm not trying to assume anything. First off, I don't believe in God or gods. Secondly, I stated only that our inability to prove He/them exists, could mean that He/them does indeed exist.

That's what known as an argument from ignorance. Because we have nothing indicating supernatural godforces exist, there is no reason to believe they do until provided with hard corroborative evidence indocating so and not otherwise.

Extraordinary claims require exraordinary evidence. So far, the case for all supernatural gods is lacking even in the most pedestrian of evidentery material.

quote:

If I were a god or God and didn't want to be reached by man, I would make it so that you, nor any other man could reach me, simple as that.

Then noone would have a reason to believe in you and you would be superfluous.

There would be no difference between a world in which you existed and a world in which you didn't.

It would be like an invisible undetectable eye of Sauron a hundred trillion light years away. Sure it sees all and knows all, but it doesn't matter because it's superfluous and doesn't affect anything.

quote:

Would I need to demonstrate that Thor is entirely nonexistent, or could I build a case on, perhaps, his apparent absence?

If that's what you wanna do. But I don't see how that has anything to do with what I said. If you tried to build a case on a dead god, then everyone would just laugh at you, as would I.

What makes thor any more dead than any god today? The fact that maybe only 1 or 2 people in the whole world honestly believe in him, or the fact that there is no evidence for his existence?

If its because hardly anyone if anyone at all believes in him, then look at history. All gods strength and influence is directly proportional to the number of people that believed in it at the time. Once the cultures died out, the gods followed suit.

They use to perform grandiose miracles, and now nothing. That is not what you would expect from a supernatural agency, but perfectly compatable with those gods being human constructs.

quote:

Conversely, you could demonstrate that he is nonexistant, however, that in no way proves or disproves the existance of any other gods or God.

Ya dig?

Thor cannot be shown to not exist. It is impossible to prove an undefined negative.

The most anyone can do on any supernatural claim such as gods is build cases on them by their apparent disintrest/noninvolvement/lack of evidence.

Is it possible to prove that any and all gods are false? No, but that's hardly a convincing reason to believe in any of them.

If you look throughout history, all the gods of ancient past predating the gods people believe in now are 'dead' gods like Thor. All these gods are widely believed false.

Now if these gods are false, where did the ideas for them come from? They came from human beings.

The first gods that men ever started worshipping are now all dead gods. This mean that people made them up. This means that the first god that man ever worshipped was invented by man.

This means that *drummroll* the concept of gods was a human construct.

A human construct. Just like faries, unicorns, dragons, leprechauns, trolls, orcs, goblins, elves, et al.

It is impossible to prove that trolls, elves goblins, dragons, etc. do not exist. Sure, the first time we ever heard of them is when we invented them, but that doesn't guarantee that we didn't coincidently happen to invent cryptozoological creatures that happen to exist in reality, yet remain unseen despite concentrated efforts to find them.

[This message has been edited by Dark_Magneto (edited 04-30-2004).]

Metalligod

2004-05-01, 00:22

Metalligod-Magneto

That's what known as an argument from ignorance. Because we have nothing indicating supernatural godforces exist, there is no reason to believe they do until provided with hard corroborative evidence indocating so and not otherwise. Extraordinary claims require exraordinary evidence. So far, the case for all supernatural gods is lacking even in the most pedestrian of evidentery material.

So the fuck what! We don’t have evidence, that does not mean that the evidence doesn’t exist. Your views lack logic and intelligence, and they are astoundingly absurd. You believe that because evidence can’t be found that, that’s a good reason to ‘not believe.’

If everyone had your mentality, humanity would never make it past infantile stages.

If you loose some freakin money, and you can’t find it, does that then mean it doesn’t exist? Your philosophy is bloated with deplorable, astonishingly stupid reasoning.

Not until late last century, had a giant squid been found and studied in a lab(though it was dead.) Stories of such a creature had been told for centuries. Should people long ago had given up the search for one? Should they have dismissed all acknowledgement that it could indeed exist, and tells of it were not folklore?

That’s a freakin mortal creature, that we have yet to find alive. So what makes you think we could find a god who obviously doesn’t want to be found, a god with in comparison to us, infinite abilities? What makes you think we could ever find God or a god, when we can’t even prove or disprove the existence of ‘the Goat Eater’ (a more well know name: Chupacabra), the ‘Rainbow Snake’, Aliens, etc.

Just because you can’t freakin find evidence of the existence of a being, does not conclude that, that being does not exist. And to think it does, proves that you severely lack the aptitude, to even imagine the faintest things.

Then noone would have a reason to believe in you and you would be superfluous. There would be no difference between a world in which you existed and a world in which you didn't. It would be like an invisible undetectable eye of Sauron a hundred trillion light years away. Sure it sees all and knows all, but it doesn't matter because it's superfluous and doesn't affect anything.

So the hell what no one would have reason to believe in me. Do you even have the potential to clutch the ignorance of your statement? That sound so childish, “If you won’t show yourself, then we won’t believe in you.-wha, wha, wha”That is extremely infantile and vulgariously dim of you, to say or even have the idea of.

If you were a god, what bearing on you does someone you created not believing in you, have on you? How in anyway does the thoughts of this obviously stupid person not believing in you, affect you? That belief is a modern small-minded atheist outlook on a massively multifarious situation.

People choose that type of outlook on this state of affairs, because they have no real argument to not believe in God, or gods. To just stick with, “I can’t see them, so they’re not real” is over worn and stupid.

What makes thor any more dead than any god today? The fact that maybe only 1 or 2 people in the whole world honestly believe in him, or the fact that there is no evidence for his existence.

The ‘one or two person’ thing. If no one believes in a god, then they are dead. Dead in the minds of man.

If its because hardly anyone if anyone at all believes in him, then look at history. All gods strength and influence is directly proportional to the number of people that believed in it at the time. Once the cultures died out, the gods followed suit.

Ok, you just answered your own question. You just clearly pointed out, that if no one believes in the dudes/dudettes then they are dead.

Thor cannot be shown to not exist. It is impossible to prove an undefined negative.

Ok, that was like… my point. How can you say that God nor any other gods exist, when you have no evidence that, that is so. At the same time, how could you honestly say that a God or gods don’t exist, when there is no evidence to support such a statement? Why are we having this argument if you already agree with me?

Is it possible to prove that any and all gods are false? No, but that's hardly a convincing reason to believe in any of them.

I’ve never said otherwise. Conversely it is also a stupid reason to not believe in a god. No it would be different if someone did as I’ve done so many times. Which is use the tales of the gods, or God and prove ‘why they can’t exist, or why they don’t possess powers that their believers think they have, etc.

If you look throughout history, all the gods of ancient past predating the gods people believe in now are 'dead' gods like Thor. All these gods are widely believed false. Now if these gods are false, where did the ideas for them come from? They came from human beings.

Ok, and the point is…? The ideals of the gods came from man, yeah. But so what. Man has reached the point we’re at today, because our minds could conceive of things that aren’t yet so. Why shouldn’t man be able to conceive of God, or gods? It makes no sense that we wouldn’t.

Of course such a creature as man would somewhere in time conceive of a “Higher Being.” It makes sense that we’d conceive of a being that put us here. I believe a being possibly put us hear.But I don’t believe it is the God in the bible, nor do I believe it is Thor, etc.

I do however; believe that all such tales hold some bit of truth to them. We’re able to conceive of such beings for a reason.

Again, I relapse to the tales of vampires, tales of them are not/were not, entirely untrue. Tales of monsters and dwarfs are not entirely true.

It is fear and ignorance that makes man take real things and inflate, and distort them. We now know that dwarfism among man is a reality. It is quite common nowadays. But just think; somewhere in some time, someone saw this and became aghast, by it, so they made up a story, or stories.

These stories were told time and time again to others. Every time it’s told, a person distorts the tale, and from them, the person they told distorts it, so on and so forth. The same applies to tales of monsters. Monster is a medical term for deformed humans.

Some people now know that it is possible for ppl to be born with tails, horns, both sexes, spine out of the body, rare conditions such as the Elephant Man’s, etc.

And about the both sexes thing, where did that start? Hmmm… Greek Mythology, Hermaphrodites. The Son of Hermes and Aphrodite, burdened with this condition because a women so in love with him, wanted to be merged with him. So a more powerful being made it so. Wow… what is that a tale conceived of by MAN. A false tale, we now know to be not completely false.

-I didn’t mean the nasty sounding things, the way they may sound. There was no hostility in my words, just utter disbelief. The kind that brings a ‘depression of sorts. The kind that makes you sit and think, “There is no hope for mankind.”-

Metalligod,out

ashesofzen

2004-05-01, 01:15

Metalligod:

So the fuck what... ...that’s a good reason to ‘not believe.’

It is a good reason to disbelieve. Did you read the article that he's been linking to a lot recently, at all?

If everyone had your mentality... ...bloated with deplorable, astonishingly stupid reasoning.

I think that you've totally misunderstood his point.

But then, of course, things were just fine when no one was skeptical about the flatness of the earth, or Newtonian physics, or the precepts of alchemy. Good damn thing no one ever questioned those theories.

Not until late last century... ...and tells of it were not folklore?

But, does the discovery of a giant squid necessarily indicate that every other creature from folklore exists? If I were to invent a creature off the top of my head, would it be at all sane to assume that my invention existed if I provided no evidence?

That’s a freakin mortal creature... ...the ‘Rainbow Snake’, Aliens, etc.

1. How is it obvious that a diety doesn't want to be found?

2. How can you assert it's "infinite abilities," especially if you cannot find the god which you claim has them?

3. You cannot prove or disprove that I am able to will you dead at any given moment. Do you assume, then, that I have such a capability?

Just because you... ...imagine the faintest things.

However, if there is no proof for an "invisible dragon in the garage" (to paraphrase), beyond biased speculation, is it more logical to assume it does or does not exist?

If you say we should assume so, your path commits you to believing every unproven speculation is true. Including that I can will you dead.

And, as far as I know, I can't.

His imagination is irrelevant. We're not talking about imagination. We're talking about reality.

So the hell what no one... ...to say or even have the idea of.

I'm god.

Will you believe me without any way to prove this is so? Will you take such a statment at face-value?

If you were a god... ...on a massively multifarious situation.

*gesture of a hand-over-the-head*

People choose that type of outlook on this state of affairs, because they have no real argument to not believe in God, or gods. To just stick with, “I can’t see them, so they’re not real” is over worn and stupid.

Of course, it's the height of intelligence to say "I can't see them, they must be real."

[This message has been edited by ashesofzen (edited 05-01-2004).]

4nal Discharg3

2004-05-01, 05:58

god doesnt exist

yes he does

erm, no he doesn't

HE DOES

why do you think that?

HE JUST DOES!

erm..... why do you think that?

mommy and daddy said

so youve never seen/felt/heard god?

<insert some lame ass excuse for the whole hype to be an all powerful being that you fucknutts believe in>

GOD DOES NOT EXIST LADIES!

pot_prince

2004-05-01, 11:31

proving god does or not exist is impossible in the strictest sense. the only thing you can prove is that one particular theory of god could not exist. for example, the christian version of god cannot exist in their exact interpretation because it contradicts itself, god is infinetely forgiving yet if you dont do everything he/they tell you then hes gonna smite you down and send you to hell for all eternity.

this isnt to say that god cant exist in the basic form of a higher being who created us though. the whole atheist vs theist debate can never end because of the nature of humans. we seek to explain everything yet there are some things that we cant yet understand or may never understand (the whoole "how'd it start?" question). this gives rise to either science or religion, science saying we can explain everything if we just work at it long enough and religion saying that its all god and not bothering to find any other explanation first.

personally i dont believe there could be a god that cares about us if he made a world like this and therefore who gives a shit about worshiping him him or beleiving in him. he doesnt give a shit so why should we?

Metalligod

2004-05-01, 18:43

It is a good reason to disbelieve. Did you read the article that he's been linking to a lot recently, at all?

No I did not. And that is not a good reason to 'not believe.' We have no evidence that the 'Big Bang' did indeed happen. But that's not a good reason to not believe it did. That is not a good reason to go with the belief that someone just put planets, moons, and stars here, and there.

You might think it is, but I think that is small-minded.(BTW, It's about time you've retuned. I was growing board. As much as you annoy me, I've missed, dreadfully, the way you always challenge me. I've shamefully admitted so, several times now.)

I think that you've totally misunderstood his point.But then, of course, things were just fine when no one was skeptical about the flatness of the earth, or Newtonian physics, or the precepts of alchemy. Good damn thing no one ever questioned those theories.

If things were his way such a thing would never have been questioned. However, I don't think the two scenarios should be equated the same. One is dealing with something completely physical and bound by physical laws.(The flat earth thing) The other is supernatural, and bound by no laws. So they can't even be representative of eachother, or thought of in the same sense.

But, does the discovery of a giant squid necessarily indicate that every other creature from folklore exists? If I were to invent a creature off the top of my head, would it be at all sane to assume that my invention existed if I provided no evidence?

Poor Ashes, ya see that's my point. Just because one incident that can be equated to others properly, is proven true or false. That does not mean all the others will have the same outcome. If you say well God does not exist becuase there is no proof to support such a thing, then you're not being very wise. There is no evidence to support the existance of Ghost, that does not mean there are no Ghosts.

But with Magneto, he puts everything in the same catagory. Just because Thor is not real, that indicates in no way that God, or other gods aren't as well. There is no evidence to support the thought that God is real. Conversely, there is no evidence to support the idea that He's not real. Do you understand what I'm saying? Absence of evidence proves nothing.

There is no evidence to support the idea that Jeremy killed Mary Sue. So what, that doesn't mean that he didn't. It could mean that he's a very efficient killer, and left no evidence.

My point is this, don't dismiss ideas cause of a lack of evidence, that's unwise. I believe that the fact that there is no evidence, is evidence enough. If I'm a freakin god, and I don't want to be found by physically bound creatures, I won't be found by them, it's simple.

1. How is it obvious that a diety doesn't want to be found?

2. How can you assert it's "infinite abilities," especially if you cannot find the god which you claim has them?

3. You cannot prove or disprove that I am able to will you dead at any given moment. Do you assume, then, that I have such a capability?

1. Because they can't be found. Either that is the truth or , they don't want to be found so easily. Or one last thing, they don't exist.

2.I said it had infinate abilities compared to us. Meaning that it could do, far more than we can. Not acutally meaning they can do anything, make everything possible. That's why I said compared to us. I don't claim a god as anything, I think it is highly likely that if one exists, they posses the ability to make it so that they can't be found if they don't want to be.

And also I was speaking of the 'Almighty God' as well.(Using the term very loosely). Tales of this god, speak of some of His abilities. Some of which by the texts on Him, I've proven to be false. But there are others which, if He's real then He'll possess, and He could make it so that He can't be found my man. Whom are physically bound, which He is not.

3. No I don't. And you've vastly takin my point out of context. My point was again that a lack of evidence means nothing. It in no way proves something true or false. It proves only that there is a lack of evidence. Ashes I expect more from you, be reasonable.

However, if there is no proof for an "invisible dragon in the garage" (to paraphrase), beyond biased speculation, is it more logical to assume it does or does not exist? If you say we should assume so, your path commits you to believing every unproven speculation is true. Including that I can will you dead.And, as far as I know, I can't.

Hahaha, you are being absurd. Anyway, I would conclude that it does not exist in the garage. I would also not even investigate such a thing because, fortuantely for me. I have this thing were my emotions can't in any way, guide my reasoning. That's the difference between me and everyone else. I'd just laugh at such a story, for the simple reason that someone described it as an, Invisible Dragon.

I'd conclude that they couldn't possibly know what it is, before they'd finish the story. For the very reason they've already said it was invisible. I'd conclude in my reasoning that such a being was concieved through inane reasoning. I'd conclude that it can't possibly exist, at least in this case. I'd conclude that I would've noticed such a thing. It would have made some noises or burnt something. If it hadn't, how then did they conclude that it was a dragon?

Reason is what seperates man from other creatures. If someone is stupid and can't tell the difference between real and not real, or possible and not possible. Then I wouldn't waste my time listening to them.

His imagination is irrelevant. We're not talking about imagination. We're talking about reality.

What I said was: "And to think it does, proves that you severely lack the aptitude, to even imagine the faintest things."

My point was this, if you can't imagine even small things. How then can you begin to talk logic on a immensely complex situation? What I said has a lot to do with imagination. If a man can't imagine simple things, with simple reasoning, he lacks mental power.

How does that have nothing to do with anything? Man makes all of his accomplishments, because his mind can concieve of things that aren't yet so. Or aren't yet discovered. How does that not have anything to do with the discussion? Plz do tell.

Just for fun:

Main Entry: imag·i·na·tion

Pronunciation: i-"ma-j&-'nA-sh&n

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from Latin imagination-, imaginatio, from imaginari

Date: 14th century

1st: the act or power of forming a mental image of something not present to the senses or never before wholly perceived in reality.

I'm god.

Will you believe me without any way to prove this is so? Will you take such a statment at face-value?

My reasoning would tell me that you're not God. Because firstly, God is a being with lots of pride in Himself. You showed that you don't have pride in yourself by not capitalizing the first letter in your name. In this case, God, is the name of someone and is therefore capitalized.

This reasoning may sound stupid to you, but so what. I know that that's a key ingredient of God. He's a very proud creature. And all of His followers know this. When you're signing your name or typing your name, you'd capitalize your first letter, that's a thing imbeded in our minds. That simple detail proves to me, that you're not God.

Secondly, 'You' have horrible reasoning on some issues, and often times, cling to bickering instead of reasoning. Thirdly, you wouldn't be atheist, which I've heard you proclaim that you were, many, many times. Forth, you wouldn't have to worry about, whether or not you'd have an online connection when you moved. That's a detail you wouldn't have bothered to bring up.

5th, it wouldn't have taken you so long to move, and begin posting again. The fact that you discussed you were moving, proves to me you're not God. It's a detail you wouldn't have bothered to bring up. It would have been irrelevent. There is a 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, etc. But I won't bother posting them, cause I believe I've proven my point, and answered the question. And again it is...irrelevent.

*gesture of a hand-over-the-head*

Whatever.

Of course, it's the height of intelligence to say "I can't see them, they must be real."

Though I detect sarcasm, I'll ask anyway. Why did you say that? What relevence does it have? No one said that, or agreed with that statement.(In no posts that I've read anyway.) So again, why say it, and what relevence does it have?

Metalligod

2004-05-01, 18:49

BTW: Ashes if you don't mind. When you get some free time, plz check out Limitations on Page2.

ashesofzen

2004-05-01, 21:14

Metalligod:

No I did not... ...several times now.)

Alas, I would need to take the whole "Big Bang" argument over to Mad Scientists; it's been quite a while since I've studied up on that one.

If things were his way... ...or thought of in the same sense.

If something is not bound be physical laws, then, how can we study it? If physical laws don't affect it, how can we say that it exists (due to that inability to study it)?

If physical laws (i. e. logic) are the sense in which we deal with the physical world, what sense, as you put it, are we left to think of the nonphysical in?

Poor Ashes... ...I won't be found by them, it's simple.

In the previous post, you drew a distinction between two things--the physical and supernatural areas, roughly.

The point is, that in the absence of evidence, which will you do: assume something does exist, or does not exist? What is more logical, as we're speaking of logic?

And, again, if you don't wish to be found by physical entities, how can you expect that they would acknowledge your existence? For, to leave no evidence behind, you cannot interact with their physical world. And, then, simply refer to many previous posts for "the rest of the story."

1. Because they can't be found... ...be reasonable.

1. So, would you say that there are elves, dragons, hobgoblins, aliens, and garden gnomes, as well? Again, for your world view to be logically consistent, if you're going to assume that, void of evidence, one exists, then it can only make sense that they all do.

2. Read up on infinity. Until you do, there's no purpose in resolving the statements in this section. Also, if you claim that he cannot be found, you cannot take evidence written by physical creatures to indicate his properties--if he cannot be found, how can they have the faintest idea of what they speak?

3. Your point wasn't only that a lack of evidence means nothing. It was, additionally, that in a lack of evidence, you will assume that such a void can be taken as evidence for an entity's (who wills that they should not leave evidence behind) existence.

Hahaha, you are being absurd... ...Then I wouldn't waste my time listening to them.

You see, therein lies your bias. Why would discount such a statement simply based on those words? That sounds horribly...close-minded...for someone so caught up in his lack of emotionality. As for the rest of this passage, just go read the damn article! Everything you say is pretty much taken care of there. It would be silly for me type the whole damn text here.

What I said was: "And to think it does... ...before wholly perceived in reality.

A great many of mans' follies have also come from imagination--from imagining that things that cannot be are, in fact, possible.

Also, it adds nothing to the debate to call into question his imagination--it merely serves to start a long string of flames.

My reasoning would tell me that you're not God. Because firstly, God is a being with lots of pride in Himself. You showed that you don't have pride in yourself by not capitalizing the first letter in your name. In this case, God, is the name of someone and is therefore capitalized.

I feel utterly secure in my pride. Such petty arguments as how I deign to type my name, or any other aspect of this poor, flawed language mean nothing.

This reasoning may sound stupid to you, but so what. I know that that's a key ingredient of God. He's a very proud creature. And all of His followers know this. When you're signing your name or typing your name, you'd capitalize your first letter, that's a thing imbeded in our minds. That simple detail proves to me, that you're not God.

Bah, I'm unknowable. No language of which you, a physical being, could conceive could actually represent my true name--it is the stuff of myself.

Secondly, 'You' have horrible reasoning on some issues, and often times, cling to bickering instead of reasoning.

It humors me to act in the guise of a human.

Thirdly, you wouldn't be atheist, which I've heard you proclaim that you were, many, many times.

Well, I cannot remember ever even making such a claim. Also, again, it wouldn't matter; isn't it much more deliciously ironic that I, god, pick up such an antithetical viewpoint?

Forth, you wouldn't have to worry about, whether or not you'd have an online connection when you moved. That's a detail you wouldn't have bothered to bring up.

You see? I seem to be utterly a real person to you. Certainly, it must have all gone according to my plan. It had you totally under my wraps--that is, until this opportunity came to present itself.

5th, it wouldn't have taken you so long to move, and begin posting again. The fact that you discussed you were moving, proves to me you're not God. It's a detail you wouldn't have bothered to bring up. It would have been irrelevent.

Nothing is irrelevant to a deity. Would you presume to not allow a god to take his time in moving, not allow him, either, to discuss such things as he may in his human form?

There is a 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, etc. But I won't bother posting them, cause I believe I've proven my point, and answered the question. And again it is...irrelevent.

Perhaps, you should get the cannon.

Metalligod

2004-05-02, 00:43

If something is not bound be physical laws, then, how can we study it? If physical laws don't affect it, how can we say that it exists (due to that inability to study it)?

That's exactly my point! How can you say something is true or false with no basis for your arguement. You cannot just dismiss a theory on the where abouts of a god. Based on your complaint that, "There is no evidence to support its existance" and expect people to think you, wise.

LACK OF EVIDENCE IN NO WAY, PROVES SOMETHING TRUE OR FALSE.

That's all I'm saying Ashyboy.(The name pun is not meant flamatorially.-as in flaming some1)

If physical laws (i. e. logic) are the sense in which we deal with the physical world, what sense, as you put it, are we left to think of the nonphysical in?

I don't see what this question has to do with anything. But whatever.

What your left with is the thing you so quickly, and unwisely dismissed as irrelevent. The 'Imagination.' I don't understand how such a thing could be dismissed as irrelevent. But being within reason in your imagining. It's not too hard to understand, but I know you'll press this on.

The difference in reasonable imagery, and nonreasonable, it's quite understandable. I'll just say it this way, cause I don't feel like writing a 'book of a post.' The imagery must be logical for someone to except it. Don't just say stupid shit like, "I think God is Mickey Mouse, and He shits planets. And when He gets mad, marbles start waring."-That's just a 'for instance', my point is don't just say anything, and expect people to except it, as I've said. It has to be something logical, don't ask my why, it just does. Human are creatures of logic(the smart ones anyway.)

And the reason I said, what I said at the beginging paragraph. About not seeing what your question had to do with anything. Is because, I think the discussion of that question, veers too far off the subject. It'll just be pressed on and on, and the topic will be forgotten. As always with you.-Don't take what I said childishly, just think about it. You'll understand that I'm being honest, that's the way it's always been in our arguements.-

In the previous post, you drew a distinction between two things--the physical and supernatural areas, roughly.

The point is, that in the absence of evidence, which will you do: assume something does exist, or does not exist? What is more logical, as we're speaking of logic?

And, again, if you don't wish to be found by physical entities, how can you expect that they would acknowledge your existence? For, to leave no evidence behind, you cannot interact with their physical world. And, then, simply refer to many previous posts for "the rest of the story."

What is it with you people and your, measily two chioce scenarios? It depends on the situation, in which there is an abscence of evidence. I wouldn't treat all situations the same. That's not very intelligent. If it's a murder case and there is a lack of evidence, it's very likely that my decision wouldn't be the same on another discussion with the same problem.

Do you get what I'm saying now? I don't think people should catagorize things like this. It's just not smart, at all.

How could I expect them to acknowledge my existance, because I made them, I gave them the minds to concieve of such a thing. Long ago, before the Christian God was ever thought of by man, man made gods to worship. What does that tell you? It tells me that someone wised up, and had the thought that, we must have come from somewhere. Ashes how can you ask that question?

Children even understand that we had to come from somewhere. Hence the age old creation, made popular by little kids. "Where do babies come from?" This thought occurs in even children, man. It's embeded in our children, the longing to know, "From where?"

I'd expect a creature that has freewill, and the ability to become so intelligent, they'd outgrow the need for naturally muscle balked bodies. Because they've learned to use intelligence as a weapon. To ask the question, "From where?"

...To grasp the concept that they had to come from somewhere.

And again, why should I care about measily mortals not believing in me for the simple reason that I won't reveal myself to them? If I were God, or a god, I'd think that those who've dismissed me altogether, would be unintelligent and not worth my time. I'd never completely dismiss the idea that a god exists. It's a stupid thing to do. I believe quite possibly that a god, could've put us here. And this being has a plan, or at least a reason for creating us.

But, I have no 'Proof' of such a thing. So I'm not willing to devote my life to worshiping this being that I'm not completely sure, exists. Why devote my life to someone I don't love? Why devote my life to someone who hasn't given me a reason to love them? I wouldn't worship this being even if I was 100% sure it existed. Cause, as I've said, I don't Know this being.

I'd think a creature that has great intellectual potential, and no knowledge of its origin. Which doesn't believe in the possibility, that a higher being made it, to be stupid, completely useless, and not worth my time. I can't stand anyone who dismisses highly possible things, without any reasoning.

As for the rest of your question, I didn't get it. I don't know what you mean when you said, "For, to leave no evidence behind, you cannot interact with their physical world. And, then, simply refer to many previous posts for "the rest of the story.""

1. So, would you say that there are elves, dragons, hobgoblins, aliens, and garden gnomes, as well? Again, for your world view to be logically consistent, if you're going to assume that, void of evidence, one exists, then it can only make sense that they all do.

Asyboy, that's just not true. I've said several times, that every situation must be assessed differently. Tales of knows, and dwarfs and such, I've said are bloated tales of people who've seem 'little people' as their called know. Well I didn't acutally say this specific thing. But that was my general idea. People see thing that socks them, and they make bloated stories about things they've seen based on fear and ignorace.

And again, think logically. I think there is a reason that certain things exist, and certains just don't. There surely are reasons why certain things can, and cannot exist. I would let reason handle any situation in which I'm told a story of such things that you've brought up. No, I'd never believe in a elves, because elves are said to be magical. I know that magic does not exist. I'd never believe in hodgoblins, because if they were truly as smart as they're said to be, then they'd have taken over the world already.

And breed humans to be killed for fun, cause after all killing humans is what they like to do. And quite frankly, the US is technologically capable of capturing them and wiping them out. So either way they don't exist. They've been wiped out, or the never existed. And lastly I'm not gullable, I never feared them, and never believed in them. Aliens I think it's ver possible that they exist. But I'm not willing to say I believe in them, only the possiblity of them.

Garden gnomes, yeah I believe in them. They're ugly statues that sit in money wasting peoples yards. Lifeless ugly statues. Dragons existed in a snese. They don't exist in the form you may be thinking about. But in other forms, yeah. I don't believe the tradition dragon exists, because, a creature of that size would have been spotted flying, wouldn't fear man. And have to be omnivorous to get the chemicals to make flames. So man and animal would be on the menue, as well as plants. Ya see, how logic solves problems.-Plz no more unreasonbly bogus, and unequatable stuff.-

2. Read up on infinity. Until you do, there's no purpose in resolving the statements in this section. Also, if you claim that he cannot be found, you cannot take evidence written by physical creatures to indicate his properties--if he cannot be found, how can they have the faintest idea of what they speak?

Ashes, have you no reason? I needn't read up on anything, also if I claim He can't be found, so what. What does that have to do with what physical creatures had to say about Him? That's stupid, illogical, and merritless. I've said quite excessively, man could conceive of things, not yet made known to him. Why is that hard to understand? Humans do it on an everyday basis. We could concieve of such a being cause one could logically exist. They have the faintest idea because man can concieve in his mind. Why do you not know this already? Believing in our minds things not yet known to use has brought use a long way, morally and technologically.

And the fact that someone can't be found, means in no way, they were never here. Ya dig?

3. Your point wasn't only that a lack of evidence means nothing. It was, additionally, that in a lack of evidence, you will assume that such a void can be taken as evidence for an entity's (who wills that they should not leave evidence behind) existence.

No, you left something out, of you telling me what I mean. It makes more sense like this, "Your point wasn't only that a lack of evidence means nothing. It was, additionally, that in a lack of evidence, you could assume that such a void can be taken as evidence for an entity's possibleexistence.

Now that was my point. The excuse that there's no evidence is not a good reason to dismiss something. And that's quite obvious, because it's a flaw within our own jurisdiction.

You see, therein lies your bias. Why would discount such a statement simply based on those words? That sounds horribly...close-minded...for someone so caught up in his lack of emotionality. As for the rest of this passage, just go read the damn article! Everything you say is pretty much taken care of there. It would be silly for me type the whole damn text here.

You see, therein lies, you're false. Because I gave reasons as to why I'd believe something. I based nothing on the way something sounds. That's absurd, and you know it. How is it close-minded, if I gave good reasoning 'why.' And pointed out several flaws in the statement? Please back up your accusation, sir.

A great many of mans' follies have also come from imagination--from imagining that things that cannot be are, in fact, possible.

What's your point? You make no sense saying this. This is what I've been pointing out. Your problem is, you hear the word 'imagination' and immedeately you equate to to people 'imagining' impossible things happening. When that's not the way I used the word. and not what I'm talking about. I think you need to do some re-reading.

Also, it adds nothing to the debate to call into question his imagination--it merely serves to start a long string of flames.

You make absolutely no sense. I had very good reason to call him on his imagination. I also believe I explained to YOU why it was important. And I never flamed him once, I pointed out flaws and said why they were flaws. You've had a little degeneracy of your intellect, ya need to get that checked out.

I feel utterly secure in my pride. Such petty arguments as how I deign to type my name, or any other aspect of this poor, flawed language mean nothing.

Your response also proves you aren't God, or a god. Unless you're an ignorant god. Because you completely missed the point. The point is on this planet and your on a completely different one. The point was this, God has alot of pride in who He is. And the bible always shown how proud He is of Himself, by capitalization of some words. One being the word God obviously cause that's His name. If you had Divine Intelligence you wouldn't be whining about what I said. You wouldn't have made the ignorant response. It was ignorant because, the point wasn't about Language Flaws.

Is was about How you wrote the name, and God doesn't have His name like that. No one not even a dumb person would sign their name without capitalizing the first letter. You didn't capitalize 'G' in 'god', you put 'god' down as in a pagan god, those God doesn't want to be confused with. Nor does He want people to believe in them. You showed that you didn't care about this, which proves, YOU ARE NOT God. It's quite simple.

Bah, I'm unknowable. No language of which you, a physical being, could conceive could actually represent my true name--it is the stuff of myself.

What the hell does that ave to do with anything? So what no one knows your real name, boo fuckin who. That has nothing to do with how YOU signed YOUR name. You're not appearing to be the smart guy you think you are. And another thing, so what if we don't know your name in another language, your 'Earth Name' would be those given by the people of that place. It would be called your name in another language. The same way 'Han, is John' in seperate languges. Come better, your reply was weak.

Well, I cannot remember ever even making such a claim. Also, again, it wouldn't matter; isn't it much more deliciously ironic that I, god, pick up such an antithetical viewpoint?

No it would just mean, you're unintelligent and a liar.

You see? I seem to be utterly a real person to you. Certainly, it must have all gone according to my plan. It had you totally under my wraps--that is, until this opportunity came to present itself.

This is what I missed, huh, you bore me. And I'm embarrassed that I ever wanted you to return, I've surpassed you immensely. Leave it to you to take a great discussion and hinder it, make it another childish game, useless bickering. You should have done a little 'growing' in your abscence.(C'mon Ashes, we should be past this)

Nothing is irrelevant to a deity. Would you presume to not allow a god to take his time in moving, not allow him, either, to discuss such things as he may in his human form?

Yup, oh and...you're not a god. So I'd further presume, that a guy, which is what you are, would make this a bickerfest. GUY, not 'GOD,' Ashes.

-Adios Aversary, oh and plz give Limitations on Page 2 a look. And be reasonable, and don't use it as a bickerfest catalyst.-

Hexadecimal

2004-05-02, 03:44

My house was raided by ninjas last night. Nothing was stolen, no prints left, no windows opened, no doors ajar. But I just know that only ninjas could invade my house without leaving any evidence.

Yes, it is possible that ninjas did raid my house. Without any evidence of it though, it's fucking absurd to assume anything other than that ninjas have never been in my house.

Now replace house with universe and ninjas with gods.

Now, it's possible gods have been around before, but without any evidence it's fucking absurd to assume anything other than gods never having existed.

Metalligod

2004-05-02, 18:18

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

My house was raided by ninjas last night. Nothing was stolen, no prints left, no windows opened, no doors ajar. But I just know that only ninjas could invade my house without leaving any evidence.

Yes, it is possible that ninjas did raid my house. Without any evidence of it though, it's fucking absurd to assume anything other than that ninjas have never been in my house.

Now replace house with universe and ninjas with gods.

Now, it's possible gods have been around before, but without any evidence it's fucking absurd to assume anything other than gods never having existed.

Ok, again, must I reiterate to you that, Equating such a scenario, to the existance of a god or God is unintelligent and illogical.

First off, no one would beleive ninjas raided your house anyway, for the simple reason that it's illogical. Secondly equating it to such a situtation as in the topic of supernatural forces, would be stupid.

To say that, "My universe was raided by gods last night." Would prove, in such a case, the existance of not only a god, but many gods. Therefore, there would be no arguement. End off BS discussion.

BTW:That was byfar, the easiest arbitration I've ever encountered. Thanx for making it easy, Hex. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

Metalligod

2004-05-02, 19:44

Ashyboy, I want to know from you first-hand, but everyone else as well.

I'm not letting my theory die just yet. I did not put my full reasoning on why Satan is not evil, because I felt that everyone would look at the length of the page and just not read it.

If I post it will you guys read me out? If I put my full reasoning, which BTW is supported by the bible. Both KingJ, and Hebrew, and the ever so lovely, ???.

What I have to say might stir the human in some of you. It might make even the most faithful question their God. This would be in no way an anti-God post.

Meaning, it's not atheist, for it cannot be. It involves someone He made, from His very hands. If you people don't already know, or have an inkling of the logic to my theory. The names alone will shock you. Don't go expecting anything amazing, by shock I mean, intrigue.

ashesofzen

2004-05-02, 20:50

Stop talking about how your ideas will be taken, and start talking about your ideas.

Nobody is going to stop you from posting, at least, no one has yet. How anyone reacts to your full set of ideas entirely depends on what they are and how they are presented.

Craftian

2004-05-03, 07:58

WOW!

Even the synopsis is SHOCKING!

I can hardly wait.

dearestnight_falcon

2004-05-03, 09:35

quote:Originally posted by 4nal Discharg3:

dearestnight_fuckwitt, read what i said closer.

i said MOST intelligent people dont believe in god. they use their own minds rather than believe anything they are told.

try using your own mind, who is easier to fool? smart or dumb.... fucktard

It isn't really relevant, but just for the reckord, I am NOT christian, I rejected all that quite some time ago.

Your original post is just fucking retarded.

You state that god doesn't exist, then ask everyone else to prove it.

Go find your own fucking answers, instead of wasting everyones time by posting another moronic atheist thread with no fucking substance but "god doesnt exist, prove that he does, ur stoopid".

No offence to Craftian and Hex, they actually show inteligence, and a desire to have a proper discussion instead of just demanding that people prove everything for them, and from what I've seen, hex recognizes religion as a human response to certain emotions rather then just a "bedtime story".

I would really like to see some proof that religious people ARE less inteligent then non religious people.

Sure, those fundie morons maybe, but that's hardly a case of them being naturally stupid, rather, its because that brainwashing has fucked them over and stopped them from reaching their potential.

Oh, and learn some basic grammar. Like capitals at the begining of sentances.

[This message has been edited by dearestnight_falcon (edited 05-03-2004).]

Metalligod

2004-05-03, 15:40

quote:Originally posted by ashesofzen:

Stop talking about how your ideas will be taken, and start talking about your ideas...

That wasn't the point of my post. It was, I would like to know if you will take the time to read it. I know no one will stop me from posting it, I just don't think anyone will want to read it because of how long it may be. That's all, I ask because some times I see really really long posts and I don't read simply because it's long and its all mushed together.

Hexadecimal

2004-05-03, 23:07

"Ok, again, must I reiterate to you that, Equating such a scenario, to the existance of a god or God is unintelligent and illogical."

No, it's not. Analogies are the primer of human understanding as language can only convery so much by itself. Analogies help convery a bit more of understanding if used properly.

"First off, no one would beleive ninjas raided your house anyway, for the simple reason that it's illogical. Secondly equating it to such a situtation as in the topic of supernatural forces, would be stupid."

Exactly! It's illogical. That's the whole fucking point. To believe ninjas, a profession all but extinct, raided my house without the slightest bit of evidence is fucking absurd and illogical. If there were swords left and cuts all over the house, it might make a bit of sense, but there's not a single damn reason to believe they were there; it's the same with a god or gods...there's not a single trace of them, there's no reason to believe they exist.

"To say that, "My universe was raided by gods last night." Would prove, in such a case, the existance of not only a god, but many gods. Therefore, there would be no arguement. End off BS discussion."

No, it would prove nothing, because I would be talking out of my ass with no evidence. There is not a single trace of a god in the entire universe. You are right though, there would be no arguement because there'd be no evidence to argue over. It's pure conjecture, and retarded at that.

"BTW:That was byfar, the easiest arbitration I've ever encountered. Thanx for making it easy, Hex."

You're welcome? By the way, I'm sure this reply was a bit easier. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif) Sorry if you didn't understand what I meant; I was trying to show that the situation is illogical...belief in something when there's no evidence, especially when its absurd in and of itself, is stupid.

Eos

2004-05-04, 02:40

a guy was sitting around one day and thought it best to answer the great questions of the universe with fictional bullshit... correction... many guys have done so... many regions, many cultures... religion is bullshit..

go with what you think the scoop is... find your own beleifs--- dont buy into organized religion...

belief in god will give you answers and make you feel better but IT IS NOT THE TRUTH... religious people can never tell that they have conditioned themselves to supply the fantasy they "believe" in... you swear that there is a god in heaven, because you wish there was a god in heaven... necessity is the mother of invention... you need to fill a hole that they say god can fill, so you buy into the bullshit to fix your problems... the orginization part of religion is to reinforce the dillusion en masse... the church is propaganda... they use your own fear, insecurity, dependence on others, and weaknesses against you.. so does the government... the government doesnt control you--- you control yourself... our government has it made, btw... it has christianity clutch to shape the people into the god-fearing herd conformist citizens they need... they define for you what you should and shouldnt do and you are conditioned by society since the day your were born to obey without question... they take everything away but leave just enough to trick us into believing we have a choice about anything... and they keep use distracted with propaganda and TV garbage...

i know im rambling about government in a religious thread, but its relevant... dont buy into the dillusion that you are in control of your life... society is conditioning you and containing your choices--- they are not controlling you--- they are tricking you into controlling yourself for them... with the bible and the constitution and the newspaper and the TV...

make up your own mind... see past the bullshit... there is no god, only fantasy... there is no right or wrong, only your own limitations... there is no government but your own oppression... guns dont kill people, people kill people with guns... drugs dont kill people, people kill themselves with drugs... clothes arent cool, the TV says so... you dont get an "education" from school, its just an impression... money doesnt mean anything, its just an icon...

if you can understand all that, you can understand why god isnt real...

and if there are those who say that they have talked with god or have seen god or have been personally touched by god or they feel god in their life every day or god answers their prayers or god has anything to do with any aspect of the universe--- some people hear a noise and say its the wind, some say it was a voice... some see something out of the corner of their eye and say it was their eyes playing tricks on them, some say it was a burglar... your scope of reality depends on the labels you give the things that you have seen, heard, smelled, tasted, touched... that is how society contains your choices and makes you control yourself... they supply you with labels and limit your scope of reality to a point where they can predict you... not only this, but they use herd conformity to their advantage... alot of people see eye to eye and it becomes accepted truth... most dont question because there were answers impressed upon them since the day they were born...

you will find your answers when you begin to seek undefiled knowledge and inner truth...

for the love of everything worth a rats ass, DONT BUY INTO THE BULLSHIT

Metalligod

2004-05-04, 02:48

No, it's not. Analogies are the primer of human understanding as language can only convery so much by itself. Analogies help convery a bit more of understanding if used properly.

Yeah, and there is something called, sagacity. A.K.A. ‘Logic’ A.K.A. ‘Making Sense’. When you decide you want to make an analogy, to make better sense to something. You have to make sure the two things are analogous. Or else ya don’t make sense. Comparing a dumbass scenario on Ninjas robbing your house to belief in deities, doesn’t make someone appear, to ‘Have them all’. Ya dig?

Why would you compare that bull, to what you compared it to? It makes no sense.

Exactly! It's illogical. That's the whole fucking point. To believe ninjas, a profession all but extinct, raided my house without the slightest bit of evidence is fucking absurd and illogical. If there were swords left and cuts all over the house, it might make a bit of sense, but there's not a single damn reason to believe they were there; it's the same with a god or gods...there's not a single trace of them, there's no reason to believe they exist.

You still don’t get it. It’s really not hard to comprehend, (Or are it???-Ode to Homer). Why believe Ninjas robbed someone’s house? Yeah you did a good job at showing why that makes no sense. But you should dare to think it logical, to compare that understanding to a case talking about preternatural forces. It’s plain stupid.

That’s equivalent to saying there’s no reason to believing Jack that Ripper, didn’t kill women because there’s no evidence that says he at the murder seen.

That’s fuckin equivalent to say, Jeffery Dommer didn’t eat people, cause there’s no evidence of human remains in his digestive system. That’s equivalent to saying Timothy McVey didn’t make the bombs that killed hundreds in Oklahoma, because his prints weren’t on the explosives. Do you now understand that applying that logic to certain scenarios, won’t give people reason to believe the person who thought of it owns a particle of intelligence?

There’s no evidence supporting the idea of a fuckin deity? That’s bullshit! Are very being here, is enough to support the idea of a deity. What’s stupid to believe is the idea that because there is no trace of a god being here, equals they aren’t real. If they’re fuckin gods, then what the hell is it to them to come in human guise? What effort to them would it be to become any creature on earth? If there is a deity and they’ve created the earth and all on it. Then what the fuck do you think could stop them from becoming a mere rock that’s rests on a hill?

Ghosts leave no trace (save for ectoplasm, wich is up for debate, and not left by all ghosts), yet that means NOT, that they can’t or don’t exist! To believe that what leaves no trace cannot exist is ILLOGICAL and sheer stupidity. Dust not man leave trace on sandy desert floors? Doesn’t the wind cover any EVIDENCE of where that man once stood? So what the hell makes you believe that a gods’ (who could have created the universe) traces would be left after millions no billions of years?

What is it that makes you think we aren’t the trace? Or this place isn’t the trace? Or that they aren’t here right now? Man has yet to find out what makes crop circles.

And I urge you now to NOT state that men can make crop circles. Because man made crop circles, and the crop circles that have no evidence of mans involvement are completely different. Crop circles that have no ‘Evidence of mans involvement have different qualities than those bull crap ‘rip offs’ that man has made.

And this can be spotted by the eye, these crop circles that are without trace of man, have been burnt into the ground. And bent at the same angle, all at the same sections. They have traces of a rare element of iridium. And the radiation emitted that burns these circles, would kill ANY being on the ground (in its vicinity) , at the time.

There’s no evidence of who made those. Should we believe that no one made them, or that they aren’t there? Tell me, what should we believe? Cause there is no evidence pointing to whose work it is, so I guess then that no one made them. Or using your ‘logic’, that’s what I’d come up with.

For what reason you believe it is completely unreasonable, and illogical that we and all around us, 'could' have been created by a god. I can't understand, and it 'Really' baffles me.

No, it would prove nothing, because I would be talking out of my ass with no evidence. There is not a single trace of a god in the entire universe. You are right though, there would be no arguement because there'd be no evidence to argue over. It's pure conjecture, and retarded at that.

Your're right it won't prove 'Nothing', it'll prove 'something'. Umm…if gods raided the UNIVERSE, then everyone would know it. Sorry, your logic works very well (in this case), thank you. To believe that no evidence means something is false, or didn’t happen, or proves something besides, that there is a lack of evidence. Would PROVE that your thinking isn’t half as ‘logical’, as you think it to be. With those ideals, I hope you never become a judge or a juror.

Conjecture means nothing? What of Einstein's conjectures? What of LaMarck’s Conjectures? What of Big Bang conjectures? What of anatomical conjectures made by scientists? What of Conjecture about NEUTRON Stars, which you so loved to talk about? All talk on these things are mere conjectures. What’s so wrong with pure conjecture? Refute the conjectures on those things. What of Avagadro’s Conjectures? Need I add more? What on these!?

You're welcome? By the way, I'm sure this reply was a bit easier. Sorry if you didn't understand what I meant; I was trying to show that the situation is illogical...belief in something when there's no evidence, especially when its absurd in and of itself, is stupid.

Ummm… I did understand your logic, that’s quite palpable. Understanding your logic is what shakes, it is why I responded. The fact that someone doesn’t agree with your logic, means in no way that they don’t understand it. Understanding your logic is what made me apt to respond. Your ‘logic’ wasn’t very wise, this is what I’m trying to stress to you.

It doesn’t apply in all things, which you believe it does. It is not properly analogous to what I’ve said. This is what I hope you’ll see, and I hope that you ‘understand’ that your logic, in this case, is not very shapely to this situation.

My 'the Gods', Hex. Plz don't be one of those people who just have to be right. When you're wrong, you're wrong. Being wrong isn't all bad, I have no qualms about being wrong, or aditting such. Don't be one of those who are.

(I'm not trying to say you're wrong or anything, that's up for debate, which is what were doing right now. But I just don't want it to head in that direction.)

Hexadecimal

2004-05-04, 04:18

I don't have to be right; I'm trying to get a point across and you keep missing it.

If Gods raided the universe, it would only be known if they left evidence. Without evidence, it's the same as believing ninjas raided your fucking house when nothing is touched. I don't see some big fucking signature on the moon saying "God was here, 14000000000 BC". If God existed, I'm sure there'd be some way to tell; existing items tend to leave traces of their existence and it's foolish to assume they exist when there is no evidence of their existence. I KNOW that lack of evidence is not proof of inexistence, but it sure as hell makes existence improbable if there's nothing at all to back it up.

Analogies are analogous by nature. The scenario of the ninja/god analogy is the same in both cases. Someone is assuming a presence that there is no evidence of. That's it, that's the fucking analogy. Assuming existence with no evidence. Strings are actually microdemons; no fucking evidence, but who knows, it's possible. Improbable as all hell and no evidence to back it up, but it's on the same level as believing in god; improbable as all hell with no evidence to back it up.

The universe being here is evidence of nothing other than the universe existing.

NewDude

2004-05-04, 05:11

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

The negative is usually proven though, by proving a contradictory statement to the positive as true.

My muffler is home to a blue dragon.

Positive: My muffler is home to a blue dragon.

Negative: My muffler is not home to a blue dragon.

Now, to prove the negative here, you simply prove a positive that is contradictory to the stated positive:

Positive: My muffler is home to only burns, char, smoke residue, and air.

By proving this, there is no logical or reasonable possibility that a blue dragon resides in my muffler; as it is home only to typical muffler containments. Contradiction is the ONLY viable way to prove a negative.

The only way to prove God does not exist, would be to prove and document the existence of everything in the Universe, and if none of it were 'God', then logically and reasonably, God does not exist.

However, the positive can only be proven with evidence...and there seems to be an utter lack of that. So the whole 'God exists' as a positive is logically unprovable at the moment, and so is the 'God does not exist' negative, as we do not have the means to contradict 'God exists' yet. Though when using proofs, if you cannot prove the positive, it goes to the negative of the proposition if sufficient evidence of the positive does not exist.

*sigh*

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/logical.html

Go. Read.

Hexadecimal

2004-05-04, 06:00

There's a difference between proving a god doesn't exist and showing a reasonable case for his inexistence. I'm an atheist myself; and I've read plenty of publications on the matters of logical 'proofs' of God's existence, and I've seen plenty of arguements against it. One can reasonably conclude God does not exist, but still, negatives cannot really be proven, but they are usually the default stance when no evidence supports anything else.

Dark_Magneto

2004-05-04, 06:49

quote:Originally posted by Metalligod:

Magneto

That's what known as an argument from ignorance. Because we have nothing indicating supernatural godforces exist, there is no reason to believe they do until provided with hard corroborative evidence indocating so and not otherwise. Extraordinary claims require exraordinary evidence. So far, the case for all supernatural gods is lacking even in the most pedestrian of evidentery material.

So the fuck what! We don’t have evidence, that does not mean that the evidence doesn’t exist. Your views lack logic and intelligence, and they are astoundingly absurd. You believe that because evidence can’t be found that, that’s a good reason to ‘not believe.’

If everyone had your mentality, humanity would never make it past infantile stages.

Whoa whoa whoa *yanks back on reins* hold dem' horses.

I never said that the evidence didn't exist or that it couldn't be found. But until it is found and is shown to exist, we are going to have to go with the reality we know over the one we do not.

The greatest aspect of science and the scientific method is the ability to adapt to new information. Now what you have proposed, hard evidence for god, is that one key that can blow atheism, agnosticism, and all other nontheist belief systems out of the water.'

Problem is, no such evidence exists as of yet and I for one am highly confident to say the least that such evidence will never arise, because it in all likelihood doesn't exist.

quote:

Ok, and the point is…? The ideals of the gods came from man, yeah. But so what. Man has reached the point we’re at today, because our minds could conceive of things that aren’t yet so. Why shouldn’t man be able to conceive of God, or gods? It makes no sense that we wouldn’t.

Ok, so here's the million dollar question:

How do you get an actual supernatural being out of an artificial, fabricated human construct?

That's like getting real hobbits and orcs from Lord of the Rings. That would be one hell of a feat, provided it were at all possible.

quote:

I think that you've totally misunderstood his point.But then, of course, things were just fine when no one was skeptical about the flatness of the earth, or Newtonian physics, or the precepts of alchemy. Good damn thing no one ever questioned those theories.

If things were his way such a thing would never have been questioned.

You must have completely misunderstood what I was saying. I emphasize questioning everything. Just because we have a conclusion does not mean that it cannot be questioned and alternatives explored. Until a superior explanation compatable with the evidence arises though, the conclusion stands strong.

quote:

Poor Ashes, ya see that's my point. Just because one incident that can be equated to others properly, is proven true or false. That does not mean all the others will have the same outcome. If you say well God does not exist becuase there is no proof to support such a thing, then you're not being very wise. There is no evidence to support the existance of Ghost, that does not mean there are no Ghosts.

But with Magneto, he puts everything in the same catagory. Just because Thor is not real, that indicates in no way that God, or other gods aren't as well. There is no evidence to support the thought that God is real. Conversely, there is no evidence to support the idea that He's not real. Do you understand what I'm saying? Absence of evidence proves nothing.

Here is where a good ol' fashioned Occam's Razor is employed. We don't increase the number of deities required, using only the bare minimum. The simplest answer that fits the evidence is the most logical solution.

Occam's razor cuts all that shit out, shaves away every superfluous element, and trims all the supernatural undetectable fat, leaving you with hard evidence and the most concise explanation.

quote:

There is no evidence to support the idea that Jeremy killed Mary Sue. So what, that doesn't mean that he didn't. It could mean that he's a very efficient killer, and left no evidence.

Yet if we find no evidence that he comited the murder, then he has to be acquitted because it cannot be shown that he murdered her.

The conclusion fits the evidence. We have the choice of "he's a master killer knowledgeable in the forensic sciences and knows how to stage a murder scene perfectly to remove all incriminating evidence" or "he didn't kill her".

If we do a background check on him and find no past history of clandestine deadly viper assassination squad type shit, then he's off the hook.

quote:

My point is this, don't dismiss ideas cause of a lack of evidence, that's unwise. I believe that the fact that there is no evidence, is evidence enough. If I'm a freakin god, and I don't want to be found by physically bound creatures, I won't be found by them, it's simple.

Or you simply don't exist, which makes perfect sense, requires no ad-hoc rationalizations or special pleading, uses Occam's Razor to posit the least number of required entities to fit the data, and makes astonishingly clear sense as to why no evidence of any gods exists, perfectly explaining the situation while making the least amount of unevidenced assumptions.

It's the most logical, rational, parsimonious answer possible. It has all the favorable traits of being the highest probable correct answer and thusly should be the prevailing conclusion until some new data comes along and changes the dynamic of the situation.

I'd like to point all of you to this critical thinking essay wrote by my friend Allan Glenn:

Refuting Unfalsifiable Claims with Superior, Incompatible Explanations (http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/critical_thinking/unfalsifiable_claims.htm)

I'ts a pretty lengthy read, but a great one. An excellent exercise in rational thought, logic, and reason application to various claims.

[This message has been edited by Dark_Magneto (edited 05-04-2004).]

Hexadecimal

2004-05-04, 07:48

That was an excellent article; could you possibly tell your friend that it is appreciated by me? I love having the chance to read up on critical thinking skills.

If you don't mind me asking, do you have a SN for AIM, Yahoo, or MSN, and if so, what might it be?

ashesofzen

2004-05-04, 08:42

Send along my compliments as well, if possible. Thanks for the article.

Craftian

2004-05-04, 10:56

quote:Originally posted by Metalligod:Comparing a dumbass scenario on Ninjas robbing your house to belief in deities, doesn’t make someone appear, to ‘Have them all’. Ya dig?

No, I don't dig. Please point out the flaw in the analogy; it's based around the fact that neither ninja theory nor theism have evidence to support them.

Where exactly does the parallel break down?

quote:That’s fuckin equivalent to say, Jeffery Dommer didn’t eat people, cause there’s no evidence of human remains in his digestive system. That’s equivalent to saying Timothy McVey didn’t make the bombs that killed hundreds in Oklahoma, because his prints weren’t on the explosives.

No it's not. We had enough evidence in other forms to convict these people of these crimes.

We have absolutely no evidence that deities exist.

quote:To believe that what leaves no trace cannot exist is ILLOGICAL and sheer stupidity.

It's not about *cannot* exist, it's about we have no reason to think they exist.

quote:So what the hell makes you believe that a gods’ (who could have created the universe) traces would be left after millions no billions of years?

Yeah, it could be the case. But why should we think it is?

quote:Conjecture means nothing? What of Einstein's conjectures? What of LaMarck’s Conjectures? What of Big Bang conjectures? What of anatomical conjectures made by scientists? What of Conjecture about NEUTRON Stars, which you so loved to talk about? All talk on these things are mere conjectures.

And all of them that have been accepted as true are backed up by evidence. You can't claim that about your position.

Ghosts, crop circles, etc. - sorry, but you just lost all credibility in my eyes.

Metalligod

2004-05-05, 02:42

I don't have to be right; I'm trying...

Ok, I’m going to end this bullshit part of the discussion. If gods raided the universe, people would see them regardless to what ‘evidence’ you claim is needed for belief in them. End that shit.

[I]Analogies are analogous by nature...I]

Analogies are analogous by nature? That’s some really stupid shit to say dude. Sorry to say but your not making the Hex, genetics look appealing.

Umm, on this test called the S.A.T’s, they have this part with ‘analogies’. These analogies go as follows, “Cat is to Dog, as Peanut butter is to…” Or on some parts, it goes, “Kitten:Cat, Baby:_____”. This proves, at least to me and others, who aren’t stuck in their ways. That all analogies are analogous to specific scenarios. One analogy does not apply to all things, as you for some reason think it does.

Just thought I’d let you know. Because what you said was…dude, forget it. Not worth it. You could scream and holler all day, that ‘there is no evidence’, however, I believe that our very existence is evidence. It is your belief that the energy that makes everything just came from atom, but I and billions of others, strongly disagree for sane, logical reasons.

Metalligod

2004-05-05, 03:39

Whoa whoa whoa *yanks back on reins* hold dem' horses.

I never said that the evidence didn't exist or that it couldn't be found. But until it is found and is shown to exist, we are going to have to go with the reality we know over the one we do not.

The greatest aspect of science and the scientific method is the ability to adapt to new information. Now what you have proposed, hard evidence for god, is that one key that can blow atheism, agnosticism, and all other nontheist belief systems out of the water.’

I wasn’t saying that you were saying, ‘the evidence doesn’t exist’. You completely missed the point. What I was saying was in direct response to your comment, “Because we have nothing indicating supernatural godforces exist, there is no reason to believe they do”. Now what I was trying to point out to you is this, just because we have no evidence, that in no way means that there isn't evidence.

And I went further on this subject when I said things about Jeffery Dommer, in another post. The point of that was, to tell you people, that the fact that evidence of something, doesn't exist. Indicates in no way that something is not true.

How do you get an actual supernatural being out of an artificial, fabricated human construct?

Just because man has never laid eyes on a creature, and constructs it in his mind, means in no way the creature doesn’t already exist. That’s the point you fail time and time again to see.

I had dreams of winged beings, horned beings, four-legged beings, all of which, have been constructed in the minds of others. All these things are things that could already exist in nature. I had dreams of angels before I’d ever heard a story about them or knew what they were. I’ve had dreams of snakes that were unreasonably long. But when I got older, a movie called ‘Anaconda’ came out. And comfirmed that these beings already exists.

That's like getting real hobbits and orcs from Lord of the Rings. That would be one hell of a feat, provided it were at all possible.

Apparently you’ve never heard stories of ‘giant squid monsters’, ‘monsters’ which we now know truly exist. And also, you speak of nonsense creatures. There’s no logical reason that those beings would exist, such as they eat waste. Or they feed on certain creatures, or they breathe carbon and give oxygen off as waste.

Are they feed on pollution, or are stable enough to handle radioactive materials. Those creatures you speak of have no logical reason to exist. Every other creature on this planet, have very specific duties. What duties would such being have that isn’t already under control? They can’t be intelligent beings as they are in the film, because they’d ‘live in the light’ as we do. Be reasonable.

Yet if we find no evidence that he comited the murder, then he has to be acquitted because it cannot be shown that he murdered her.

So the hell what, that has nothing to do with the issues. And you completely missed the crux of that message. Completely overlooked it. The point it, proves your arguments to be unreasonable in this situation. LACK OF EVIDENCE MEANS NOTHING! NO EVIDENCE AT ALL MEANS NOTHING! THE FACT THAT NO EVIDENCE EXISTS, ON SOMETHING, MEANS IN NO WAY SOMETHING IS FALSE.

I could have someone kidnapped and taken to a far off, remote area, and have them strapped down. So that when I met up with them, I could castrate the person, just grap ‘it’ (wearing gloves) and get the job done, then leave. There would be no evidence pointing to me. No evidence would exist, that points to me. Given that, the kidnappers don’t know who I am, and I’m not blabbing out it now. No evidence would say that it was I, who committed the crime. This means in no way, that it wasn’t I who committed the crime. Ya dig?

The conclusion fits the evidence. We have the choice of "he's a master killer knowledgeable in the forensic sciences and knows how to stage a murder scene perfectly to remove all incriminating evidence" or "he didn't kill her". If we do a background check on him and find no past history of clandestine deadly viper assassination squad type shit, then he's off the hook.

And the point in saying all these things was what? You do realize that you’ve just proved me right and you wrong? You saying that ‘he’s off’ because there ‘IS NO EVIDENCE’ but we already know that it was indeed he, who did it. The fact that ‘NO EVIDENCE EXISTS’ means nothing.

Or you simply don't exist, which makes perfect sense, requires no ad-hoc rationalizations or special pleading, uses Occam's Razor to posit the least number of required entities to fit the data, and makes astonishingly clear sense as to why no evidence of any gods exists, perfectly explaining the situation while making the least amount of unevidenced assumptions.

You still don’t get it, you see the point and you go around it. It’s like you purposely avoid it cause it proves you wrong. You in the beginning of the quoted above, state the word. “Or”. Which proves that there is an ‘OR’, so as I’ve said already, you shouldn’t just dismiss something as you so unwisely did in the beginning which compelled me to reply. And you also prove that the inability to prove or disprove something, in no way makes something true or false. This discussion needn’t go any further.

It's the most logical, rational, parsimonious answer possible. It has all the favorable traits of being the highest probable correct answer and thusly should be the prevailing conclusion until some new data comes along and changes the dynamic of the situation.

Dude, can you not learn? I’ve proven, and with your help might I add, that the most logical answer is not always the true/right answer. Need I again refer to Dommer or Jeremy?

If we do a background check on him and find no past history of clandestine deadly viper assassination squad type shit, then he's off the hook.

Background checks are bullshit! For people such as myself, they have no meaning. I haven’t a crime on my record, yet I’ve planned on doing very nasty things to people, one of these plans I know for a fact that I am going to carry out, once I gather all the resources I need. No one will expect me to do what I plan; few believe that I am capable of such things. But I know for fact that this plan will be carried out, given the fact that the person doesn’t die first.

There is nothing that will point to anything that I’m going to do, there is no way for anyone to know save for the fact that I tell them right out. So what good does a ‘background’ check does it have on all the ‘Metalligods’ out there? (There can never truly be another me, thank heavens)

Hexadecimal

2004-05-05, 04:04

"Ok, I?m going to end this bullshit part of the discussion. If gods raided the universe, people would see them regardless to what ?evidence? you claim is needed for belief in them. End that shit."

That's exactly what I was trying to say. If gods raided or even inhabited the universe, there would be evidence.

"[I]Analogies are analogous by nature...I]

Analogies are analogous by nature? That?s some really stupid shit to say dude. Sorry to say but your not making the Hex, genetics look appealing."

No, not stupid to say. I was pointing out the obvious so you might understand the point that analogies, allegories, metaphors, and any other sort of symbolic message uses analogous sitations and items; in my analogy, ninjas:god::house:universe::raiding:existing; that's quite simple to see and they both have the same premise that NO EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THE CLAIM AND THAT THE CLAIM IS THEREFOR ILLOGICAL TO ASSUME PROVIDED THE LACK OF EVIDENCE.

"Umm, on this test called the S.A.T?s, they have this part with ?analogies?. These analogies go as follows, ?Cat is to Dog, as Peanut butter is to?? Or on some parts, it goes, ?Kitten:Cat, Baby:_____?. This proves, at least to me and others, who aren?t stuck in their ways. That all analogies are analogous to specific scenarios. One analogy does not apply to all things, as you for some reason think it does."

And you're talking to a 1600 right now, so go fuck a cow, I know analogies. The only situation I was applying my analogy towards was the claim that ninjas raiding a house and not leaving evidence, and the claim of gods existing in the universe and not leaving evidence.

"Just thought I?d let you know. Because what you said was?dude, forget it. Not worth it. You could scream and holler all day, that ?there is no evidence?, however, I believe that our very existence is evidence. It is your belief that the energy that makes everything just came from atom, but I and billions of others, strongly disagree for sane, logical reasons."

No, I actually believe atoms are just massive amounts of energy formed into matter...as does anyone trained in the basics of physics (E=MC^2, remember that famous one?).

You can bitch all you want about my analogy, but I set the premise and made clear what each item was analogous towards so that the situation was clear. Your lack of understanding of the analogy doesn't demean it's validity in the slightest...Christ, you'd probably take Thomas Swift serious.

Metalligod

2004-05-05, 20:29

No, I actually believe atoms are just massive amounts of energy formed into matter...as does anyone trained in the basics of physics (E=MC^2, remember that famous one?).

I’m going to try and not respond to everything else you’ve said, because it’s quite obvious that you completely miss the point of the things I say. And other reasons, so let me just say this:

You need to learn the meaning of things before you decide to respond to them. Your response, which I’ve quoted above, sounds stupid. When I used the term, “From Atom”, that meant, “From nowhere”. Had you taken the time to understand the things that I say you’d know this small detail. Your response was very stupid, condescending and not on subject. Try and learn what points, which people try and convey to you before you respond.

Now you want to break things down, well pay attention to this: Atom- an Egyptian word meaning ‘From Nothing’ or ‘From Nowhere’. In ancient Egyptian text, it is pronounced, (A~long ‘A’-tum) which is not a far stretch from (A~long ‘A’- toom)

BTW: There was no lack of understanding, on my part, of you BS analogy. Your analogy was simply stupid, ill-conceived, and useless. It is your belief that it makes sense to link it to a situation that is far more complex than the simple circumstances of it.

You do that, but don’t expect any and everybody to think as you do. Don't expect people to not try and make you see that your analogy/analogies is/are severely flawed. And contrary to your beliefs, analogies aren’t analogous by nature. One analogy simply cannot be equated to scenarios that have a wholly different essence.

Equating the analogy: Brandon stole and ate my purple hotdog, I know so because he threw up pieces of purple hotdog. -To– Ghosts weren’t in this house because there aren’t any ghost footprints. Would be a very stupid thing to conjecture. (If indeed ghosts were/are real)

You have this dumb mentality of: Boc, and Zoc dogs eat meat. Coc’s are meat, so Boc’s and Zok’s must eat coc’s. Which is stupid, cause Zoc’s and Boc’s could eat each other and not eat Coc’s.

You might as well say that Protons are more complex than Electrons. Because it is Protons that are made up of many other thing. Whereas an Electron has no known components of its make-up. Electrons are just themselves.

Well wouldn't that info alone show that electrons are complex? They don't seem to be made of anything, that's is strange. Protons are strange as well, being as tiny as they are, and still made up of something else. Where do the things that make them come from?

It's quite strange that they have very specific make-ups and can be but together in many, many ways to make even more things. As though they are building blocks of some sort, like 'Lego`s'. In a sense they seem to be some childs', plaything.

ashesofzen

2004-05-05, 21:08

Metalligod:

I’m going to try and not respond... ...(A~long ‘A’-tum) which is not a far stretch from (A~long ‘A’- toom)

You have got to be pulling our collective leg. You've decided to pull an ancient Egyptian word for "nowhere," and expect that the we'll read it as "atom" rather than "atom?"

You complain that his response was "very stupid, condescending, and not on subject," yet you can't even use words that would be commonly understood by most of your readers. The point? Part of using one's knowledge is knowing how best to communicate with one's readers.

BTW: There was no lack of... ...than the simple circumstances of it.

If it was "simply stupid, ill-conceived, and useless," then why don't you just point out the severe flaws. It would make your case on hell of a lot stronger. He's explained why it holds. You haven't explained why it's flawed. Therefore, Hexadecimal > Metalligod.

You do that, but don’t expect any and everybody to think as you do. Don't expect people to not try and make you see that your analogy/analogies is/are severely flawed. And contrary to your beliefs, analogies aren’t analogous by nature. (What!?!? What exactly are they, by nature, then?) One analogy simply cannot be equated to scenarios that have a wholly different essence.

Equating the analogy: Brandon stole... ...(If indeed ghosts were/are real)

Of course. That's why that is a flawed analogy.

But, saying "Brandon did not eat my purple hotdog because when he threw up there were no purple chunks. -To- Ghosts weren't in this house because there aren't any "ghost footprints." might get a little bit closer. Again:

Brandon:ghosts: :purple hotdog:house: :purple chunks:ghost footprints

"Ya dig?"

You have this dumb mentality of: Boc, and Zoc dogs eat meat. Coc’s are meat, so Boc’s and Zok’s must eat coc’s. Which is stupid, cause Zoc’s and Boc’s could eat each other and not eat Coc’s.

set A(sub)dog {B, C} eat meat.

set D(sub)meat {E} are meat.

nowhere is a member of set A(sub)dog defined as "meat." Therefore, the only known member of set D(sub)meat is E.

Now, if a member of set A eats a member of set D, what must we logically conclude?

You might as well say that... ...they seem to be some childs', plaything.

1. By what standards are you judging complexity?

2. hmmmm....in Paragraph 3, it seems that you are saying:

child:god::lego:subatomic matter

an analogy?

I thought you didn't like those.

edit: format error, disabled emoticons.

[This message has been edited by ashesofzen (edited 05-05-2004).]

Metalligod

2004-05-05, 21:24

No, I don't dig. Please point out the flaw in the analogy; it's based around the fact that neither ninja theory nor theism have evidence to support them.

Where exactly does the parallel break down?

I’ve already pointed out the flaw. Ya don’t dig because ya don’t pay attention. Proving that there’s no evidence to support something means in no way at all, that, that something isn’t true. People don’t believe in Thor any longer, simply because his existence makes no sense. The existence of God makes sense for many reasons.

Just because man could make something up in his head, means in no way the thing isn’t already in existence. The word ‘discovered’ means only that, YOU personally, have found something you didn’t know already existed. I believe faithfully that a god, or God, could come and go as He sees fit. And in doing so leave no trace the He/they were ever where they were.

I find it highly illogical and unwise to totally dismiss something, especially this ‘something’, because there is a lack of, or no evidence. You want to fuckin talk about a god or God, and completely dismiss the beings’ abilities. You want to pick and choose, reasons on how ‘illogical’ it is to believe in them with no evidence. But dismiss the fact that sense they are gods, they could dissolve any ‘evidence’ that they were there.

You all speak nonsense words, and hate that such could be proven. The parallel breaks down when you equate totally physically bound creatures, to a creature that is bound by nothing but will. A being that could make themselves whatever they want to be. What if God/gods came to earth everyday as ordinary people or materials? You wouldn’t know shit about it, just because you can’t find proof of them, it in no way means they don’t exist. The parallel breaks down when you compare a creature of the physical world and bound by it, to a being that is bound by whatever they want to be bound by. A being that could bend the physical world to there benefit.

These things can be neither proved nor disproved, so to just say it doesn’t exist cause it can’t be proven is completely stupid. Comparing a situation with fuckin ninjas to the existence of God/gods is gay, and just fuckin stupid. It makes no sense at all that ninjas would raid someone's house; it makes clear sense why a god would make it so that man can’t discover them.

No it's not. We had enough evidence in other forms to convict these people of these crimes.

Yes it is, and what you say is fuckin stupid. So the fuck what we had other evidence to CONVICT him. This is not about his CONVICTION, it is about whether or not he ate people. And to say that, “There is no evidence in his body, that says he ate people.” Means in conclusion that he does not/did not eat people, is FUCKIN STUPID! Ya Dig?

We have absolutely no evidence that deities exist.

You are not coming off as one possesses a brain. It is your belief that it is completely impossible that a deity put us here. Ok you stick to that, but don’t expect people to think, that that is an intelligent principle. And don’t rebut with the bullshit response, “I never said that it is completely impossible for a deity to exist.” Because you’d then be a lie named shit. When you said, “There is absolutely no evidence” you are in turn saying that there is no possible way that one could exist. You are saying that our existence is in no way evidence that a deity possibly exists.

It's not about *cannot* exist, it's about we have no reason to think they exist.

With you, it is about *cannot*! It is your illogical belief, that the physical world isn’t evidence enough to reason that a deity could exist.

Yeah, it could be the case. But why should we think it is?

I said it is stupid to completely dismiss the idea. I’ve never said that we should think ‘it is’. So why would you ask me that question?

And all of them that have been accepted as true are backed up by evidence.

So what. That’s not the point. Did you even read anything I leading up to the part you quoted and responded with the above in italic? Or did you read and just didn’t take the time to understand the point before you responded to it? I’m curious could you answer this sense I’ve answered your questions?

You can't claim that about your position.

What exactly is my position, because I don’t think you know. I believe you are just responding without understanding. So what exactly is my position, because I know good and damned well there are many thing to support my position. Despite whatever you think ‘that’ may be.

Ghosts, crop circles, etc. - sorry, but you just lost all credibility in my eyes.

I’m not sorry, that you have no credibility in my eyes. Because I’ve come to understand that you’re just responding without a scintilla of the meaning of my posts. You’re just looking at them, reading certain parts. You’re just responding, without grasping a tiny piece of its intendment.

What about, “Ghosts, crop circles, etc”? What’s your point, cause I certainly had a point when I brought them up. So again, what was your point?

hand_made_attrocity

2004-05-06, 00:33

Metaligod, from now on refrain from using the word logic in your posts, you have made it clear already that you posses none. Why is it illogical to disbelieve in god, there is no evidence that such a being exists. Evidence is needed, you have none. Our existance is proof of our existance, nothing more. The fact that you belive in god is just a reflection of your own pathetic existance, let me also make clear to you that believing in a god with out evidence is illogical, believing in anything with out evidence is illogical, and to say otherwise as you have is further proof of your own stupidity.

Hexadecimal

2004-05-06, 00:42

"I?ve already pointed out the flaw. Ya don?t dig because ya don?t pay attention. Proving that there?s no evidence to support something means in no way at all, that, that something isn?t true. People don?t believe in Thor any longer, simply because his existence makes no sense. The existence of God makes sense for many reasons."

You pointed out what you THOUGHT was a flaw, and then I showed how it wasn't you fucking moron. And how does God's existence make senese? Back your assertations; and fuck you, I wasn't trying to be condecending in my post, I'm trying to get you to realize that the analogy was motherfucking valid. I stated the premise, and even stated what each object was analogous to so you could fucking understand it, but you still don't get the fucking point; Ninjas could have raided my house and not left evidence, but due to lack of evidence there's no reasoning behind the belief that ninjas raided my god damned house, you fucking imbecile. (Yes, I'm getting incivil because you apparently like that posting style...you know, insulting rather than being on topic)

"Just because man could make something up in his head, means in no way the thing isn?t already in existence. The word ?discovered? means only that, YOU personally, have found something you didn?t know already existed. I believe faithfully that a god, or God, could come and go as He sees fit. And in doing so leave no trace the He/they were ever where they were."

Still, you fucking twit, until evidence is shown, there is no reason to believe something true. There is no evidence of gods...they may exist, yes, but without the slightest bit of evidence there is no reason to think they do.

"I find it highly illogical and unwise to totally dismiss something, especially this ?something?, because there is a lack of, or no evidence. You want to fuckin talk about a god or God, and completely dismiss the beings? abilities. You want to pick and choose, reasons on how ?illogical? it is to believe in them with no evidence. But dismiss the fact that sense they are gods, they could dissolve any ?evidence? that they were there."

I don't dismiss the idea, I just see no reason to believe it. If evidence is presented, I'd find a god's existence much more probably than its current status of pure conjecture and faint possibility.

"You all speak nonsense words, and hate that such could be proven. The parallel breaks down when you equate totally physically bound creatures, to a creature that is bound by nothing but will. A being that could make themselves whatever they want to be. What if God/gods came to earth everyday as ordinary people or materials? You wouldn?t know shit about it, just because you can?t find proof of them, it in no way means they don?t exist. The parallel breaks down when you compare a creature of the physical world and bound by it, to a being that is bound by whatever they want to be bound by. A being that could bend the physical world to there benefit."

Look, the qualities of an imagined, possibly realistic being don't mean jack shit if there is no evidence. We have no evidence of them playing the roles of mortals, there is no reason to believe they do. If all the gods do is play hide and seek without leaving evidence, there's no fucking reason, or evidence, to back the claim they exist. It's not a matter of possibilities; it's well known that every fucking thing anybody could possibly imagine in their wildest fucking dreams is possible, but until it happens, or evidence of it already happening is found, or occurs, there is no fucking reason to believe it is true. Everything, absolutely everything is fucking possible...evidence separates the probably from the possible though, and until you realize that, I will continue to believe you are a fucking moron.

"These things can be neither proved nor disproved, so to just say it doesn?t exist cause it can?t be proven is completely stupid. Comparing a situation with fuckin ninjas to the existence of God/gods is gay, and just fuckin stupid. It makes no sense at all that ninjas would raid someone's house; it makes clear sense why a god would make it so that man can?t discover them."

What if the ninjas wanted to explore your house to plan a future attack? What if they were working for an assassin's guild to perfect a later hit? What if they were hiding from antagonistic assassins? There's plenty of sensible reasons why ninjas would enter your home...but without evidence of their presence, there's no fucking reason to believe that have entered your home. It's the same with gods, but once again, until evidence is shown, there's no fucking reason to believe they occupy this universe. If you cannot see how the situations are analogous, you need fucking help, because you are a retard.

"Yes it is, and what you say is fuckin stupid. So the fuck what we had other evidence to CONVICT him. This is not about his CONVICTION, it is about whether or not he ate people. And to say that, ?There is no evidence in his body, that says he ate people.? Means in conclusion that he does not/did not eat people, is FUCKIN STUPID! Ya Dig?"

You know what is evidence of him eating people? Mutilated body parts in his house, along with his confession of cannibalism...GASP, what's this? Evidence of murders, and the possibilities of disposing of the bodies through various means, one of which he confessed to. You're a fucking idiot.

"You are not coming off as one possesses a brain. It is your belief that it is completely impossible that a deity put us here. Ok you stick to that, but don?t expect people to think, that that is an intelligent principle. And don?t rebut with the bullshit response, ?I never said that it is completely impossible for a deity to exist.? Because you?d then be a lie named shit. When you said, ?There is absolutely no evidence? you are in turn saying that there is no possible way that one could exist. You are saying that our existence is in no way evidence that a deity possibly exists."

Believing existence of ourselves is not evidence of a deity does not mean you believe deities cannot exist. YOU took a leap of logic there and somehow connected his faithlessness based on lack of evidence to an absolute declaration that it is impossible. He's saying there is no reason to believe a god exists, not that one cannot and never has existed.

"With you, it is about *cannot*! It is your illogical belief, that the physical world isn?t evidence enough to reason that a deity could exist."

How is it illogical to believe our world is not evidence of a deity? Eat shit you mongoloid.

"I said it is stupid to completely dismiss the idea. I?ve never said that we should think ?it is?. So why would you ask me that question?"

He's not dismissing the idea you fucking dolt. He is saying there is no reason to believe the idea; once again, everything is possible but until evidence exists, some things have no place as a truth.

"I?m not sorry, that you have no credibility in my eyes. Because I?ve come to understand that you?re just responding without a scintilla of the meaning of my posts. You?re just looking at them, reading certain parts. You?re just responding, without grasping a tiny piece of its intendment."

WE are misunderstanding YOU?!? Fuck you. You take leaps in logic constantly, put words into our mouths, have argued that analogies are not analogous by nature (THEY HAVE TO BE ANALOGOUS OR ELSE THEY ARE NOT A FUCKING ANALOGY; THEY ARE ANALOGOUS BY DEFINITION AND BY NATURE), have made assertations that our existence is evidence of a higher beings existence with providing no backing, refuse to understand the difference between probable and possible, fail to understand that a court conviction is based on logical conviction (belief based on reason and logic), and you also expected people to know you were using egyptian language when every other word in your post was English without even stating the meaning of the word used or atleast providing the language it originated from. Fuck you; your father's sperm must have been doubled up or something to create a child as foolish as you are.

Hexadecimal

2004-05-06, 00:48

Just for your reference; this is from dictionary.com and is the definition of analogous:

1. Similar or alike in such a way as to permit the drawing of an analogy.

See that you fucktwit? If analogous items are the nature of analogy, it is within the nature of an analogy to be analogos..hence them having the same root and both derived from the same fucking word.

Metalligod

2004-05-06, 01:40

You have got to be pulling our collective leg. You've decided to pull an ancient Egyptian word for "nowhere," and expect that the we'll read it as "atom" rather than "atom?"

I really fuckin hope you’re joking. Just beFUCKINGcause a word is or was an ancient word made my ancient people. Means in no way people shouldn’t know the meaning of the damned word. Especially after the word has been inducted into your language. I pointed out the ORIGIN of the word.

SO WHAT! In slang, atom has that very same meaning, I am disgusted that you’d even make such a reply. I know you people have heard the phrase, “I don’t know him/her from atom.” In which case the word means from anywhere, or from nowhere. If you people don’t know that then that’s a PP.

You complain that his response was "very stupid, condescending, and not on subject," yet you can't even use words that would be commonly understood by most of your readers. The point? Part of using one's knowledge is knowing how best to communicate with one's readers.

What fuckin word did I use, that isn’t commonly understood. A fuckin jellyfish could understand it if someone says, ‘from atom’. Sense you and he can’t understand the phrase ‘from atom’ then I suggest you come into this century. Now what other words are you referring to? I bet that it’s a simple word that’s self explanatory.

If it was "simply stupid, ill-conceived, and useless," then why don't you just point out the severe flaws. It would make your case on hell of a lot stronger. He's explained why it holds. You haven't explained why it's flawed. Therefore, Hexadecimal > Metalligod.

Umm… It’s quite apparent that you don’t pay attention. I can’t stand this shit; I don’t know anything more annoying than someone telling me to repeat myself. I’ve already pointed out several severe flaws in his so-called logic. What you mean to ask is, ‘why don’t I just point out those severe flaws again?’ No, why don’t you? Learn how to read, it comes in handy, go look back on what I’ve already said, if you want to see those, ‘severe flaws’. You’re too fuckin dim to read what’s already there, therefore, Ashes=ignorance.

And contrary to your beliefs, analogies aren’t analogous by nature.(What!?!? What exactly are they, by nature, then?)

Analogy-Main Entry: anal·o·gy

Pronunciation: &-'na-l&-jE

Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): plural -gies

Date: 15th century

1: inference that if two or more things agreewith one another in some respects they will prob. agree in others.

Analogous-Main Entry: anal·o·gous

Pronunciation: &-'na-l&-g&s

Function: adjective

Etymology: Latin analogus, from Greek analogos, literally, proportionate, from ana- + logos reason, ratio, from legein to gather, speak —more at LEGEND

Date: 1646

1 : showing an analogy or a likeness that permits one to draw an analogy

2 : being or related to as an analogue

synonym see SIMILAR

Like I fuckin said, you dit-shitz. His so-called analogy, wans’t analogous to what I said. Therefore it was not an analogy, therefore was not analogous by nature. When I said that they weren’t analogous by nature, it’s obvious that I meant they aren’t analogous to everything.

As he was trying to say it was. If that isn’t/wasn’t apparent to you, so fuckin what. That’s yet another, PP. His fuckin Ninja bullshit, was NOT analogous to the existence of a deity. One is far more complex than the other, and the two situations aren’t analogous to eachother.

When you decide you want to make an analogy, to make better sense of something. [/b]You have to make sure the two things are analogous.[/b] (Had you paid better attention, you would had noticed that I said this to him, and with good, obvious reason.)

If you had paid AfuckingTTENTION then you’d know why I said it the way I’d said it. (Speaking of the statement, anaologies aren’t analogous by nature.) When I told Hex, that his analogy didn’t work in this situation he specifically said, “Analogies are analogous by nature. The scenario of the ninja/god analogy is the same in both cases. Someone is assuming a presence that there is no evidence of. That's it, that's the fucking analogy.”

It was quite obvious that I was telling him his analogy wasn’t an analogy at all. I’m so very sorry that you couldn’t grasp that from the things I’ve said. For instance: "Ok, again, must I reiterate to you that, equating such a scenario, to the existence of a god or God is unintelligent and illogical."- I thought by these words, it was obvious that I was telling him his analogy, wasn’t an analogy. Sorry I wasn’t clear Master. I’m so sorry Master Ash, that me not calling his analogy an analogy in the beginning.

I’m sorry that me calling it a scenario wasn’t enough to make you people see, that I was saying that it wasn’t truly an analogy. I thought I’d made it clear, that’s all. I didn’t know you people couldn’t understand things if it’s not in the exact words you want it to be in.

Maybe I should’ve just said, “Your analogy, isn’t truly an analogy.” I’m so sorry that you couldn’t understand that I was calling his analogy an incomplete analogy. Because it, as I called it in the beginning, was a scenario, and it needn’t another that fit its meaning.

Of course. That's why that is a flawed analogy.

Ok, now I’m just going to ask. Are you STUPID?! That was the fuckin point of me writing that. And that’s the same problem his analogy poses. I believe I said,

“Equating the analogy: Brandon stole and ate my purple hotdog, I know so because he threw up pieces of purple hotdog. -To– Ghosts weren’t in this house because there aren’t any ghost footprints.

Would be a very stupid thing to conjecture. (If indeed ghosts were/are real)” This is the very same fucking flaw his analogy has. Is it truly that fuckin hard to realize, understand, recognize, know, comprehend?

Oh great Master Ash, I had to use as many as I could get in, to make sure that you and your great brilliant friends could understand, recognize, know, comprehend, realize, grasp, take in what I had to say, speak, convey, converse-to you. Damn it, I did it again, but only to make sure that you could comprehend, realize, grasp?

UGH! Ya see how it never ends, it’s making me crazy, zany, wacky, insane. The constant making sure that you inhumanly, godly, heavenly- brilliant, luminous, radiant- people, humans, citizens, persons, beings- could, possibly will-, understand, realize, recognize, know- what I’m, me, I am- trying to tell, advise, enlighten, convey, explain- to you, is maddening, infuriating, annoying, irritating.

set A(sub)dog {B, C} eat meat.

set D(sub)meat {E} are meat.

nowhere is a member of set A(sub)dog defined as "meat." Therefore, the only known member of set D(sub)meat is E.

Precisely, that’s where LOGIC comes in. We know that all meat-eating creatures have meat. The meat they take in has to go somewhere; we don’t eat things and just shit them out of the other end. We give off the things we don’t use as waste, not the things we do use. Meat wouldn’t be eaten if there were no use for it. We eat it and some of it becomes part of us. I’m not saying that if you eat a hamburger the chewed up filth can become part of your thigh. ‘Ya Dig’?

It’s your fuckin fault that you don’t know such things, it’s your fuckin fault that you can’t use LOGIC correctly, to figure out such simple things. It’s also your fault that you don’t know that DOG’s HAVE/ARE MEAT. It’s your fault that you are too fuckin stupid to know such things. You act like a bitch, daring to say, “nowhere is a member of set A(sub)dog defined as "meat."”

You possess inhuman stupidity. What you’re doing is gay, just fuckin gay. Bitching and moaning about trivial things, you’d rather resort to needless bitching, and childish word games, than civil commune. Oh, I’m sorry do you not know what trivial means? Is commune too uncommon of a word for you? And you say I’m not clear, ha fuckin ha bitch.

(It’s really fuckin sad that it’s come to a point where people need to write something, and then underwrite it, to explain what they mean. It’s to the point where ‘Plain English’ isn’t enough. It’s sad that someone can’t say, I drunk a cup of sugar water” they have to say as well, “I drunk some water with sugar mixed in it, which was inside a cup”)

Therefore, the only known member of set D(sub)meat is E.

Are DOG’S NOT MEAT, DUMBASS? Some of you people possess no known intelligence, Ashes, to clarify. Like I said, you’d rather resort to bitching than commune. You want to SO LOGICAL, and try to find loopholes in what I say. Why didn’t your Divine Intell, make you note that dogs are creatures of meat. And again, are they not? Name one dog that has no meat.

Can you do that? Are my nasty words justified, do I not have a reason to say what I say? You all make snide, condescending posts, as I’ve said. I ask now for REASON in what I say, not if I’m allowed or if you think it’s childish or not. Are my words justified, is there good reason to say what I say? Are you going to avoid the question altogether?

Now, if a member of set A eats a member of set D, what must we logically conclude.

BS!

1. By what standards are you judging complexity?

2. hmmmm....in Paragraph 3, it seems that you are saying:

child:god::lego:subatomic matter

an analogy?

1. By their make-up, I believe I’ve said this.

2. I’m not saying anything, accept, that the possibility is there, and it is good reason to believe a deity could exist. And no, it’s not an analogy. I don’t understand how you could conjecture that I was even hinting that it was. If that’s not the case and you’re rhetorically asking me if what you presented is an analogy, my answer is still no. Had it been an actual question.

Sequitur: Ashes, it seems we'll never come to terms with eachother. I've tried it all, I really wanted to be civil with you. But it feels like being so juvenile, and patronizing is something you love.

I don't know what problem you have with me, but whatever it is, get over it. If this is not the case and I'm just putting too much thought into this, then I'm sorry. Why is it that you and I can't be civil?

Are your question real questions, or are you indeed being patronizing? Is your logic real logic? Or are you just thinking of things to say to purposely antogonize me? I know some of this is my fault, for I expect too much of people I don't know.

When I read what you people say, I think of it from every angle. I mean, I leave no questioned unanswered. I think about what you guys say, and give my honest, well-thought out responses. What I'm saying is I think on everything I say.

I make no responses without first answering question and statements I think you will rebut with. I think to myself my answers, and look at the answers as from another persons angle. When I read you guys' posts, I sudy every detail of it and have reasons why it's wrong or why not.

What I'm trying to say is, it feels like I'm the only who thinks about what they say before they say it. It feels like you guys just read and without full understanding make replies. And it eats me up.

The dog thing is a perfect example. I for some unknown reason thought you were like, genious smart, but that was before the Satan stuff. Even still I thought you were really smart, and do as I do. Which is, looking at things from every angle. I find it highly questionable, that you'd come up with a.... Oh my God. It just dawned on me, your problem.

You are smart, and instead of looking at things for what they are, taking things at face value. You dig for mistakes and/or loopholes and odds & ends. But the things that could be seen by just looking, you don't notice them. You came up with your arguement on the dog incident. But completely ignored the fact that I said they were dogs.

Can you understand at least a little, where I'm coming from? It seems highly questionable that you'd overlook such an important detail. Are you just a 'Wayne Szalinski'? Not meaning, are you a genius, but do you agree or think that you have a habbit of overlooking obvious things?

hand_made_attrocity

2004-05-06, 03:32

METALIGOD You are a fool, your attempt to sound condescending by insulting these guy's intelligence has failed. Let me now comment on your intelligence; I dont really see how it is possible for one such as yourself, one who is unable to spell and use grammar, would think he could bewilder people with a 12 year olds vocabulary. You are a fucking idiot, what else can I say, your an absolute moron. Stop acting like you have all the answers, because you dont. Also atom isnt even a fucking egyption word you fucking idiot, atom comes from the greek work atomos which means uncuttable you stupid piece of shit.

Hexadecimal

2004-05-06, 03:57

"I really fuckin hope you?re joking. Just beFUCKINGcause a word is or was an ancient word made my ancient people. Means in no way people shouldn?t know the meaning of the damned word. Especially after the word has been inducted into your language. I pointed out the ORIGIN of the word."

Yeah, that's a damned good reason to not know the meaning of the word, especially if one does not study ancient religions. I've NEVER seen the word atom, in English, used to mean 'nothing'; not in poetry, not in textbooks, not in novels, and for the first time in my entire life, I saw it used online by someone who expects people to know ancient egyptian.

"SO WHAT! In slang, atom has that very same meaning, I am disgusted that you?d even make such a reply. I know you people have heard the phrase, ?I don?t know him/her from atom.? In which case the word means from anywhere, or from nowhere. If you people don?t know that then that?s a PP.""

Slang varies by region, you parasitic fuckwit. For my region, the slang is entirely different than that of the east coast, and that of the west coast, and that of the south; it also differs greatly from the slang Canadians and Europeans use when speaking English. If you do not understand the concept of dialects of variable slang, then don't fucking use a slang term without realizing people may not know the fucking term. I'm not a linguistics professor; I don't know Egyptian. I assumed from your countless examples of poor grammar that you had simply forgotten an article in your sentence and were using atom in the generally accepted definition.

ashesofzen

2004-05-06, 04:49

Metalligod:

I really fuckin hope you’re joking... ...If you people don’t know that then that’s a PP.

Tell me, do you know every Latin word? Every Chinese word? Every Sumerian word? How can you state "Just beFUCKINGcause (sic) a word is or was an ancient word made my (sic) ancient people. (sic) Means in no way people shouldn't know the damned word?" Do you know every word ever used by everyone everywhere?

Definition of atom (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=atom).

Additionally, I sincerely doubt that you know every slang term that is in use in the English language at this time. For example, can you tell me every slang use of the term "choke?"

Now, as for "I don't know him/her from atom," let us try a little experiment.

Search results through google.com for: "I don't know him from atom." (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22I+don%27t+know+him+from+atom%22&btnG=Search)

Search results through google.com for: "I don't know him from Adam." (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=%22I+don%27t+know+him+from+Adam%22)

Now, as for your later statement, "Ashes=ignorance," all I have in reply is "ashesofzen > Metalligod; therefore, Metalligod < ignorance."

Analogy-Main Entry: anal·o·gy... ..and it needn’t another that fit its meaning.

Hexadecimal (excerpted):

... ninjas:god::house:universe::raiding:existing ...

Invalidate it.

Metalligod:

Ok, now I’m just going to ask... ...Is it truly that fuckin hard to realize, understand, recognize, know, comprehend?

Yes. It is very hard to comprehend how these are the same stated analogies; the one you came up with doesn't work.

You know why? the first statement is (reduced to show the problem):

***x and y indicate actions (x being the proved action, y being the proving action), actor and item should be apparent in their context.***

Actor(sub)1 x item(sub)A, because actor(sub)1 y item(sub)B.

Actor(sub)2 NOTx item(sub)C, because actor(sub)2 NOTy item(sub)D.

Tell me, what is the key difference between these statements?

That is why I changed your analogy to "Brandon did not eat my purple hotdog because when he threw up there were no purple chunks. -To- Ghosts weren't in this house because there aren't any "ghost footprints."

UGH... ...irritating.

You know, brevity is nice (agreeable, congenial, favorable, good, gratifying, pleasing, pleasurable, pleasureful, welcome)

.

Precisely, that’s where LOGIC comes in...

No, that is where assumption comes in. You assumed that dogs are made of meat. It was never a stated parameter. Logic is what I applied to the parameters you gave. Not knowing what " Boc, (sic) and Zoc dogs" are, I would not make such an assumption. Hell, for all I know, they could be types of furnaces. If you want to treat something with logic, you must make certain to define the parameters.

...We know that all meat-eating creatures have meat...

Bacteria come to mind, as do fungi.

...The meat they take in has to go somewhere... ...it’s your fuckin fault that you can’t use LOGIC correctly, to figure out such simple things. It’s also your fault that you don’t know that DOG’s HAVE/ARE MEAT. It’s your fault that you are too fuckin stupid to know such things. You act like a bitch, daring to say, “nowhere is a member of set A(sub)dog defined as "meat..."”

No, it's your fault that you failed to give me the full parameters; it's your fault that I did, in fact, show you that the statement which you claimed was illogical was logical; it's your assumptions that caused the ambiguity in the parameters. I dared to say that "nowhere is a member of set A(sub)dog defined as 'meat'" because that was the simple truth.

...You possess inhuman stupidity... ...It’s sad that someone can’t say, I drunk a cup of sugar water” they have to say as well, “I drunk some water with sugar mixed in it, which was inside a cup”

"I drank a cup of sugar water" is proper, I believe.

Are DOG’S NOT MEAT, DUMBASS... ...Name one dog that has no meat... ...Are you going to avoid the question altogether?

(statement bolded by myself)

I can, and will, answer your challenge.

source: (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=dog)

"3a: any of various usually simple mechanical devices for holding, gripping, or fastening that consist of a spike, bar, or hook" Not meat.

"4: uncharacteristic or affected stylishness or dignity" Not meat.

"5: (capitalized) either of the constellations Canis Major or Canis Minor" Not meat.

2. I’m not saying anything... ...Had it been an actual question.

If it isn't for the purposes of an analogy, then why did you bring up children and building toys?

Sequitur: Ashes, it seems we'll never... ...you have a habbit of overlooking obvious things?

I don't ignore what you say. I do, in fact, understand everything that you're saying (well, occasionally I don't). However, when I see a flaw, I don't just overlook it. If someone was learning algebra, and you saw an obvious flaw in their method, would you "let it slide?"

Please stop with the personal monologues. If you want to waste space with those, type a post for B&M or SG. This forum isn't about personalities, it's about ideas.

edit: error correction.

[This message has been edited by ashesofzen (edited 05-06-2004).]

4nal Discharg3

2004-05-06, 09:00

Oh crap, you guys sure do type alot to back up your "God".

Who are you trying to convince? Me or yourselves?

ashesofzen

2004-05-06, 09:22

Thank goodness we've got such a marvelous pseudo-intellectual as yourself around to point out our deep psychological doubts. We'd be lost without you. Actually, I might just be drunk out of my skull.

The latter sounds better, honestly.

edit: extra capital letter.

[This message has been edited by ashesofzen (edited 05-06-2004).]

Metalligod

2004-05-06, 20:32

METALIGOD You are a fool, your attempt to sound condescending by insulting these guy's intelligence has failed.

Bitch, you are the fuckin fool. I, in no way, tried to sound condescending to anyone. You have no fuckin clue what the hell you’re talking about. You dick breathe-faggot. State stated fact, and had several things to backup the things I said. You ill-bred piece of shit

Let me now comment on your intelligence; I dont really see how it is possible for one such as yourself, one who is unable to spell and use grammar, would think he could bewilder people with a 12 year olds vocabulary.

Bitch how-fuckin-dare you, you think you have the room to comment on my intelligence? Plz bitch, you want to talk about spelling bitch you can’t even spell the words: Don’t, and you dare to speak on spelling, bitch just die; you can’t fuckin spell Metalligod, even thought it’s in your face; and grammar? Bitch, grammar?

Please show me where the word ‘uncuttable’ is accepted as a real fuckin word. What fuckin dictionary has ‘uncuttable’ in it? Ha fuckin ha bitch, you’ve got the gall to talk about spelling and grammar, just do away with your useless self, stupid pile of shit.

You are a fucking idiot, what else can I say, your an absolute moron. Stop acting like you have all the answers, because you dont.

Oh, I detect a little jealousy, idiocy, and false-descriptiveness. First off, you wanna talk about some people who are an idiots, lets first look at your parents, for they are the cause for this mistake called, ‘you’.

Second, you’re a redundant bitch, idiot-moron? You want to talk about vocab, how dare a bitch like you begin to speak on it. Expand your vocabulary to the level of a 12yr olds’, and then we can talk.

Whatta bitch, you aint got the balls to beef, you aint got the brains to beef. My fuckin spit is far more intelligent than you. And you dare to try and flame me? Plz, I’d have more trouble arguing with a toe-nail. I’d sure as hell get a better argument.

Also atom isnt even a fucking egyption word you fucking idiot, atom comes from the greek work atomos which means uncuttable you stupid piece of shit.

Now this is the part where I ready my shot-gun, and off the barking bitch.

Ok bitch, when I was 12yrs old (what a coincidence.), I read this little book called, ‘The Stolen Legacy’. In this book I learned of an ancient Egyptian god by the name of, Atum. Who was said to be the first of all gods, and thus being the creator of the universe.

The Egyptians named him this, because the word ‘Atum’ means ‘from Nothing/Nowhere’. And also, yo gay ass want to talk about the Greeks, well looky hear. In this book I also learned that the great scholars, Aristotle, Plato, Pythagoras (ya know from the ‘Pythagorean Theorem’, but then again, it is you that I’m talking about. You obviously don’t know a thing.) , Herodotus, Thales, Anaxagoras, and Hippocrates.

Oh shit, wait, aren’t all these guys GREEK? Did you ever wonder whom taut them? Well as history shows, they stole Egyptian works, and used them as their own. Thus leading the world to believe that they thought all the shit up on their own. Don’t ya just love how EDUCATED I am? Don’t ya just love how every time I post, I spew great, and much needed knowledge? If not, so what bitch. Like you matter to anyone. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

And also, I think I should add. THE GREEK DERIVED THE MEANING OF THE WORD ATOM FROM A NEGATIVE PREFIX, MEANING ‘NOT’. And the present infinitive active, of ‘temno’. Which means ‘to cut’. The two derivatives together form a word meaning ‘that which cannot be cut’.

Yo dumbass wants to be particular about things. Get shit right, ho. Uncuttable, the very word disgusts me, almost as much as the fact that you’d even try and challenge my intelligence.

And any fuckin way, the Greek interpretation of atom was dismissed long ago, yet the Egyptian definition still stands. If you were smart, then you’d know that the fuckin bullshit word you used, ‘uncuttable’ was dismissed because the fuckin atom was split long ago. And like I said, Atom/Atum comes from Egyptian origin. Uncuttable, huh.

It’s quite rare, that I don’t have something to say that others can’t learn from. Let me finish the history lesson, thus finishing you off, bitch! -A hum *clears throat*- The great scholar, who found all these things out was silenced, and his works buried. But let me get back to Atum. Atum was also known as ‘the sun god, his name also caries the meaning ‘the all and the not yet Being’. Ya dig so far?

Now as you might be able to tell by now, the reason the damned word is said to come from a Greek translation is because the damned Greeks learned it from the Egyptians. It is well known that the Egyptians were very intelligent people. And contrary to the bullshit they show you kids in movies they weren’t white-ass people (no offense) in the fuckin dessert.

They all would have died of skin cancer, because whites and other peoples with light complexions don’t have the great amounts of melanin that dark people have.

-It’s unnatural for whites to live in such condition, that’s why they naturally habituated cooler climates, because the complexion of their skin, allows them to absorb heat better. *End of BS Disclaimer-

But these Egyptians were not as dark as the other Africans, just a few shades darker than the Arabs. The Greeks had a name for these people, which meant ‘dark people’ or ‘people of color’. Right now I can’t remember what that word is, but rest ashore that I’ll be posting it later. I bullshit you, not. Anyway, it’s not that fuckin hard to go to yahoo and type in ‘Atum’ to find out that I spoke the truth.

Now as for any BS, on people saying anything close to, “Nah uh, Ra was the sun god!” Atum had another name, which was, Amon. The Egyptians had other stories about him, where his name became, Amon-Ra. Thus the name Ra pops up.

Now eat shit bitch!

[This message has been edited by Metalligod (edited 05-06-2004).]

Craftian

2004-05-06, 20:52

I think it should be pretty clear to just about everybody by now that Metalligod is a kook in the finest Internet tradition.

Metalligod

2004-05-06, 20:53

Yeah, that's a damned good reason to not know the meaning of the word, especially if one does not study ancient religions. I've NEVER seen the word atom, in English, used to mean 'nothing'; not in poetry, not in textbooks, not in novels, and for the first time in my entire life, I saw it used online by someone who expects people to know ancient egyptian.

Our whole fuckin language is comprised of ANCIENT words, and word derivatives. You ignorant piece of shit. I don’t expect YOU to know anything, see that’s were you’re wrong. I know full well that you’re stupid, I don’t expect you to even know about the fuckin pramids. I never once even implied that I expect you or anyone else to know Egyptian anything.

I did however think that you people knew that the word ‘atom’ could be used to signify ‘nothing’. Especially after the damned definition you’re dick-ridin fan pointed out. Atom was a word made to signify, from ‘not’. As in NOT EXISTANT, or just NOT, then fitted with the word temno, for to cut. So bitch all you want, and I highly doubt that you’ve never heard the phrase, “I don’t know him/her from atom.”

Slang varies by region, you parasitic fuckwitBS BS BS BS…BS BS BS BS…

On which coast do you live? Hex Shitwitz.

Metalligod

2004-05-06, 22:12

quote:Originally posted by Craftian:

I think it should be pretty clear to just about everybody by now that Metalligod is a kook in the finest Internet tradition.

No get it right Craft, I'm creepy and I'm kooky. Not just a kook! http://www.totse.com/bbs/mad.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/mad.gif)

Dark_Magneto

2004-05-06, 22:30

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

If you don't mind me asking, do you have a SN for AIM, Yahoo, or MSN, and if so, what might it be?

I sent you an email to the address that was on your listed homepage in your profile.

Hexadecimal

2004-05-06, 23:20

Okay, thanks.

Hexadecimal

2004-05-06, 23:23

"On which coast do you live?"

I don't live on the coasts. I live in the central region, more specifically, northern Illinois.

ashesofzen

2004-05-06, 23:28

I'm waiting, Metalligod. I notice that you've got snappy replies to everyone, but that you've yet to actually rebut my statements, or even acknowledge them.

Metalligod

2004-05-06, 23:59

Tell me, do you know every Latin word? Every Chinese word? Every Sumerian word? How can you state "Just beFUCKINGcause (sic) a word is or was an ancient word made my (sic) ancient people. (sic) Means in no way people shouldn't know the damned word?" Do you know every word ever used by everyone everywhere?

No Master Ashes, no I don’t know them. I needn’t know things of languages I don’t speak. I speak English and deal only in what is English even that which has been inducted into the English language from others. Need I reply more oh great one?

Additionally, I sincerely doubt that you know every slang term that is in use in the English language at this time. For example, can you tell me every slang use of the term "choke?"

No Sir. No I don’t know every slang term for choke, I needn’t know what I won’t hear, or use. I wouldn’t know every slang term for choke but atom yes, because it is by no means NEW. It was being used in the slang way I used it in, long before I was ever born.

BTW:

Now, as for your later statement, "Ashes=ignorance," all I have in reply is "ashesofzen > Metalligod; therefore, Metalligod < ignorance."

Oh great one this little message umm…fights itself. You say that you’re greater than I, yet I ealier said that you were the living equivalent to ignorance. So if: Metalligod < ignorance, then you are saying that, Metalligod (Me) has less ignorance. Therefore you’re not greater than me, at least when it comes to what we know. Your statement fights itself, ya know, contradicts.

Hexadecimal (excerpted):

... ninjas:god::house:universe::raiding:existing ...

Invalidate it.

Ninjas are to god as house is to universe; as raiding is to existing? You think that’s a complete analogy; you think that makes sense? Ok, whatever, I know that it is not, I’ve said why it is not. But I’ve given up; I needn’t speak anymore on this or anything else in this thread. Because once again, I give up, I’m throwing my arms up. You are right, I am wrong, end of story. I won’t argue with anything you say, as I’ve already stated. Whatever you say is right.

Yes. It is very hard to comprehend how these are the same stated analogies; the one you came up with doesn't work.

And which one would that be? The one I purposely made to not make sense, and told Hex that it was equivalent to his? Or the one that did make sense, the one with the dogs?

That is why I changed your analogy to "Brandon did not eat my purple hotdog because when he threw up there were no purple chunks. -To- Ghosts weren't in this house because there aren't any "ghost footprints.

Dude, I’m starting to get annoyed, so stop being so freakin retarded.

"I drank a cup of sugar water" is proper, I believe.

Don’t start this BS again, it’s not like you don’t make grammatical errors. And anyway, that was in quoted text, in which case, it’s easy to note that I was quoting EXACTLY what someone has said, the way they’ve said it. Ya Dig?

I don't ignore what you say. I do, in fact, understand everything that you're saying (well, occasionally I don't). However, when I see a flaw, I don't just overlook it. If someone was learning algebra, and you saw an obvious flaw in their method, would you "let it slide?"

It depends.

Please stop with the personal monologues. If you want to waste space with those, type a post for B&M or SG. This forum isn't about personalities, it's about ideas.

edit: error erection.

Yes Master, Sir. But you’ve made one error, it’s about the natives’ ideas.

R U happy now?

[This message has been edited by Metalligod (edited 05-07-2004).]

[This message has been edited by Metalligod (edited 05-09-2004).]

hand_made_attrocity

2004-05-07, 00:11

quote:Originally posted by Metalligod:

METALIGOD You are a fool, your attempt to sound condescending by insulting these guy's intelligence has failed.

Bitch, you are the fuckin fool. I, in no way, tried to sound condescending to anyone. You have no fuckin clue what the hell you’re talking about. You dick breathe-faggot. State stated fact, and had several things to backup the things I said. You ill-bred piece of shit

Let me now comment on your intelligence; I dont really see how it is possible for one such as yourself, one who is unable to spell and use grammar, would think he could bewilder people with a 12 year olds vocabulary.

Bitch how-fuckin-dare you, you think you have the room to comment on my intelligence? Plz bitch, you want to talk about spelling bitch you can’t even spell the words: Don’t, and you dare to speak on spelling, bitch just die; you can’t fuckin spell Metalligod, even thought it’s in your face; and grammar? Bitch, grammar?

Please show me where the word ‘uncuttable’ is accepted as a real fuckin word. What fuckin dictionary has ‘uncuttable’ in it? Ha fuckin ha bitch, you’ve got the gall to talk about spelling and grammar, just do away with your useless self, stupid pile of shit.

You are a fucking idiot, what else can I say, your an absolute moron. Stop acting like you have all the answers, because you dont.

Oh, I detect a little jealousy, idiocy, and false-descriptiveness. First off, you wanna talk about some people who are an idiots, lets first look at your parents, for they are the cause for this mistake called, ‘you’.

Second, you’re a redundant bitch, idiot-moron? You want to talk about vocab, how dare a bitch like you begin to speak on it. Expand your vocabulary to the level of a 12yr olds’, and then we can talk.

Whatta bitch, you aint got the balls to beef, you aint got the brains to beef. My fuckin spit is far more intelligent than you. And you dare to try and flame me? Plz, I’d have more trouble arguing with a toe-nail. I’d sure as hell get a better argument.

Also atom isnt even a fucking egyption word you fucking idiot, atom comes from the greek work atomos which means uncuttable you stupid piece of shit.

Now this is the part where I ready my shot-gun, and off the barking bitch.

Ok bitch, when I was 12yrs old (what a coincidence.), I read this little book called, ‘The Stolen Legacy’. In this book I learned of an ancient Egyptian god by the name of, Atum. Who was said to be the first of all gods, and thus being the creator of the universe.

The Egyptians named him this, because the word ‘Atum’ means ‘from Nothing/Nowhere’. And also, yo gay ass want to talk about the Greeks, well looky hear. In this book I also learned that the great scholars, Aristotle, Plato, Pythagoras (ya know from the ‘Pythagorean Theorem’, but then again, it is you that I’m talking about. You obviously don’t know a thing.) , Herodotus, Thales, Anaxagoras, and Hippocrates.

Oh shit, wait, aren’t all these guys GREEK? Did you ever wonder whom taut them? Well as history shows, they stole Egyptian works, and used them as their own. Thus leading the world to believe that they thought all the shit up on their own. Don’t ya just love how EDUCATED I am? Don’t ya just love how every time I post, I spew great, and much needed knowledge? If not, so what bitch. Like you matter to anyone. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

And also, I think I should add. THE GREEK DERIVED THE MEANING OF THE WORD ATOM FROM A NEGATIVE PREFIX, MEANING ‘NOT’. And the present infinitive active, of ‘temno’. Which means ‘to cut’. The two derivatives together form a word meaning ‘that which cannot be cut’.

Yo dumbass wants to be particular about things. Get shit right, ho. Uncuttable, the very word disgusts me, almost as much as the fact that you’d even try and challenge my intelligence.

And any fuckin way, the Greek interpretation of atom was dismissed long ago, yet the Egyptian definition still stands. If you were smart, then you’d know that the fuckin bullshit word you used, ‘uncuttable’ was dismissed because the fuckin atom was split long ago. And like I said, Atom/Atum comes from Egyptian origin. Uncuttable, huh.

It’s quite rare, that I don’t have something to say that others can’t learn from. Let me finish the history lesson, thus finishing you off, bitch! -A hum *clears throat*- The great scholar, who found all these things out was silenced, and his works buried. But let me get back to Atum. Atum was also known as ‘the sun god, his name also caries the meaning ‘the all and the not yet Being’. Ya dig so far?

Now as you might be able to tell by now, the reason the damned word is said to come from a Greek translation is because the damned Greeks learned it from the Egyptians. It is well known that the Egyptians were very intelligent people. And contrary to the bullshit they show you kids in movies they weren’t white-ass people (no offense) in the fuckin dessert.

They all would have died of skin cancer, because whites and other peoples with light complexions don’t have the great amounts of melanin that dark people have.

-It’s unnatural for whites to live in such condition, that’s why they naturally habituated cooler climates, because the complexion of their skin, allows them to absorb heat better. *End of BS Disclaimer-

But these Egyptians were not as dark as the other Africans, just a few shades darker than the Arabs. The Greeks had a name for these people, which meant ‘dark people’ or ‘people of color’. Right now I can’t remember what that word is, but rest ashore that I’ll be posting it later. I bullshit you, not. Anyway, it’s not that fuckin hard to go to yahoo and type in ‘Atum’ to find out that I spoke the truth.

Now as for any BS, on people saying anything close to, “Nah uh, Ra was the sun god!” Atum had another name, which was, Amon. The Egyptians had other stories about him, where his name became, Amon-Ra. Thus the name Ra pops up.

Now eat shit bitch!

[This message has been edited by Metalligod (edited 05-06-2004).]

Hmmm, why am I getting the impression you dont know what your talking about, perhaps because you dont. You are wrong about the origin of the word atom, it is entirely greek, 100%. And I dont care what your little story book say's because its wrong. Around 440 BC, Leucippus of Miletus originated the atom concept. He and his pupil, Democritus (c460-371 BC) of Abdera, refined and extended it in future years. The work of Leucippus and Democritus was further developed by Epicurus (341-270 BC) of Samos, who made the ideas more generally known. Aristotle (384-322 BC) quotes both of them extensively in arguing against their ideas. Much of what we know about their ideas comes to us in a poem titled "De Rerum Natura" (On the Nature of Things) written by Lucretius (c95-55 BC). This poem, lost for over 1000 years, was rediscovered in 1417. Democritus quotes Leucippus: "The atomists hold that splitting stops when it reaches indivisible particles and does not go on infinitely."

In other words, there is a lower limit to the division of matter beyond which we cannot go. Atoms were impenetrably hard, meaning they could not be divided. IN GREEK, THE PREFIX "A" MEANS "NOT" AND THE WORD "TOMOS" MEANS CUT. OUR WORD ATOM THERFORE COMES FROM ATOMOS, A GREEK WORD MEANING UNCUTTABLE.

Democritus reasoned that if matter could be infinitely divided, it was also subject to complete disintegration from which it can never be put back together. However, matter can be reintegrated. blah, blah, blah... So there you have it I hope that you have learned somthing, If nothing else to keep your mouth shut. I wont lower myself to your level and resort to using profanity to insult your intelligence. Please know that I will always regard you as my inferior, if i forget that you are not even worth regarding.

Metalligod

2004-05-07, 01:25

I can't prove a lot of this stuff because it is copy written work, therefore not printed on webpages to be copied and pasted.

But anyway, just for the hell of it:

Atum is all, self-generating and source of everything, he is the sun god.

Main Entry: alpha privative

Function: noun

Date: 1590

: the prefix a- or an- expressing NEGATION in Greek and in English. And also, temnien, to cut. (http://room23.de/569.html)

A. Text of Part II

The Gods of Order and arrangement in the cosmos are represented by nine gods, in one God-head, called the Ennead Here Atum (Atom), the source of the Ogdoad, is also retained as the source of the Gods of Order and arrangement. Atum (Atom) names four pairs of parts of his own body, and thus creates eight Gods, who together with himself become nine. These Eight Gods are the created Gods, the first creatures of this world. And (Atum), the creator God, the Demiurge, of whom

Plato spoke.---Oh shit! Did he just say Plato? So I guess that means Plato was schooled in Egypt and/or by Egyptian scholars and Egyptian works. (http://www.nok-benin.co.uk/history_philosophy1.htm)

hand_made_attrocity

2004-05-07, 01:49

quote:Originally posted by Metalligod:

I can't prove a lot of this stuff because it is copy written work, therefore not printed on webpages to be copied and pasted.

But anyway, just for the hell of it:

Atum is all, self-generating and source of everything, he is the sun god.

Main Entry: alpha privative

Function: noun

Date: 1590

: the prefix a- or an- expressing NEGATION in Greek and in English. And also, temnien, to cut. (http://room23.de/569.html)

A. Text of Part II

The Gods of Order and arrangement in the cosmos are represented by nine gods, in one God-head, called the Ennead Here Atum (Atom), the source of the Ogdoad, is also retained as the source of the Gods of Order and arrangement. Atum (Atom) names four pairs of parts of his own body, and thus creates eight Gods, who together with himself become nine. These Eight Gods are the created Gods, the first creatures of this world. And (Atum), the creator God, the Demiurge, of whom

Plato spoke.---Oh shit! Did he just say Plato? So I guess that means Plato was schooled in Egypt and/or by Egyptian scholars and Egyptian works. (http://www.nok-benin.co.uk/history_philosophy1.htm)

IN GREEK, THE PREFIX "A" MEANS "NOT" AND THE WORD "TOMOS" MEANS CUT. OUR WORD ATOM THERFORE COMES FROM ATOMOS, A GREEK WORD MEANING UNCUTTABLE. Perhaps you just missed that part, or maybe your level of sheer incompetence blinded it to you, in either case you are a moron. Atom is a greek word of Greek origin, if you had read my earlier post you would understand (well thats giving you to much credit, there is a slim chance you would understand). Also the fact that plato went to egypt is completely irrevalant as plato had nothing to do with... this is a waste of my time. You are wrong, I have proven this to everyone clearly, If you do not realize this then you are probably unable too, "ya dig"

ashesofzen

2004-05-07, 03:42

Metalligod:

No Master Ashes... ...It was being used in the slang way I used it in, long before I was ever born

If you don't know all these, it's rather intolerant of you to call the rest of us stupid for not knowing obscure slang (that I've become quite convinced you made up yourself).

Oh great one this little message umm…fights itself. You say that you’re greater than I, yet I ealier said that you were the living equivalent to ignorant. So if: Metalligod < ignorance, then you are saying that, Metalligod (Me) has less ignorance. Therefore you’re not greater than me, at least when it comes to what we know. Your statement fights itself, ya know, contradicts...

(emphasis added)

Actually, you did not say I was equivalent to ignorant, you said I was equivalent to ignorance.

The signs <, =, and > mean, respectively, "is lesser than," "is equal to," and "is greater than." "Has" doesn't enter into it at all.

2 > 1, for example, does not say "2 has greater than 1," it says "2 is greater than 1."

Seriously, that was utterly a childish attempt to say, essentially, "I'm rubber, you're glue..."

...And which one would that be? The one I purposely made to not make sense, and told Hex that it was equivalent to his? Or the one that did make sense, the one with the dogs?...

The statement about the dogs was an analogy? What for?

I was, in fact, referring to the one which didn't make sense. Simply put, it was not equivalent. That was the point. I edited the analogy so that both were speaking in the negative sense. A positive statement is not equivalent to a negative statement.

...Yes Master, Sir. But you’ve made one error, it’s about the natives’ ideas.

I don't follow. Where in the quoted passage did I mistype a possessive? I didn't even use a possessive, near as I can tell.

In regards to your disproving Hex's analogy, all I can remember you stating was, to paraphrase, "it's too simple." Was there more to your statement?

O, and I notice that several sections were not quoted. Are you conceding those?

4nal Discharg3

2004-05-07, 07:34

IF god existed we would be able to communicate with him, some of you have played Black & White - surly all these muslim fools wouldnt be running around starting wars if they KNEW god... duhhhhh! Why sit back and let us kill each other, if hes real, he would be able to stop this (as you claim he is all powerful and all that bs)

[G-Prime]

2004-05-07, 19:48

I don't know. I don't beleive in god, mainly because I've never been given enough evidence to beleive in it. Plus, the information comes from the bible. Unless I've missed another book, there isn't even a way to cross reference it. It's all just taken from the bible.

Anyways it's easier to not beleive in got. I wont support a religion that threatens you with your immortal soul being sent to hell if you don't follow the commandments.

4nal Discharg3

2004-05-08, 00:22

Exactly, its unnatural to put your complete trust into somthing that will supposidly decide your complete eternity..

its such bs, you kids who believe in god have been lied to! ITS ALL LIES! DONT WASTE UR LIFE LIVING BY RULES!!!!

lots of replys to such a simple post, you bibble bashers must be really insecure about your saviour!

dearestnight_falcon

2004-05-08, 00:46

quote:Originally posted by 4nal Discharg3:

lots of replys to such a simple post, you bibble bashers must be really insecure about your saviour!

Wow.... if you actually read the posts, you might realize that after the first page or so, pretty much all of the arguing was between Metaligod and the resident atheists, and Metaligod isn't a christian.

But I suppose expecting someone like you to read through all those loooonnnggg posts with all those huuuuggggeee words just wouldn't be fair would it?

So I might just shut up now and leave you to post more moronic comments that have no basis whatsoever, like you have done throughout the whole thread. Why don't you take a leaf out of the book of one of the other atheists, you know, the inteligent ones?

ashesofzen

2004-05-08, 01:02

4nal Discharg3:

IF god existed... ...and all that bs)

Why must a god care what anyone on this lil' planet does?

There are probably quite a large number of behaviors that you are capable of stopping; does that mean that you necessarily will, because you are capable?

As you put it, "...DONT WASTE UR LIFE LIVING BY RULES!!!!" If you don't believe people should, why must a god?

Exactly, its unnatural to put your complete trust into somthing that will supposidly decide your complete eternity...

I'd say that if we knew that there is an eternity, and there is someone who determines how you spend it, it would be quite obvious that we should probably trust 'em.

...lots of replys to such a simple post, you bibble bashers must be really insecure about your saviour!

And from the tone of your statements, could it not be said that you're insecure?

4nal Discharg3

2004-05-08, 22:14

lol to be honest, after the first 2yrs of asking questions like this i became very bored with peoples answers!

i stopped reading after the first page, but i find saying stupid random "YOUR GOD IS STUPID" things drives you idiot fools crazy http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

Metalligod

2004-05-09, 02:47

If you don't know all these, it's rather intolerant of you to call the rest of us stupid for not knowing obscure slang

Great example, Ashes, of what I’ve been saying all along. First of all, you don’t pay well enough attention to what people say before you decide to make a response. Second, you misconstrue what people say; now I’m convinced that you do this on purpose.

Like I said you love to play ‘word games’. I never said anyone was stupid for not knowing the meaning of atom. Not once did I ever say such a thing. You’re a liar, plain and simple, and you’re very childish as well.

Actually, you did not say I was equivalent to ignorant, you said I was equivalent to ignorance.

(Ok, lets start here: “Retroactive Edit”)

Actually, case & point, right here. You are very, very childish. Sense it is apparent that what I say about you and ‘word games’ is completely true. Then it also proves that, what I say on/about your maturity is also true. You love to play word games, yet you could not note that me saying ‘Ashes equals ignorance’.

Means, that you, a living being, are the living equivalent to being ignorant/the state of being ignorant. Ignorance, is the state or fact of being ignorant, ignorant, is lacking knowledge, and/or comprehension. You are, as I’ve said, the living equivalent of ignorant. Or in other words, ‘you are a living example of being ignorant’-ignorance.

"Has" doesn't enter into it at all.

More proof of your, ‘being in a sate of childishness’. First you don’t seem like an intelligent person, reason? Lets start with your horrendously wrong, statement: The signs <, =, and > mean, respectively, "is lesser than," "is equal to," and "is greater than.

That shit makes NO Sense. You really need to invest into some ‘Corrective English’ program. Never was I taught to say, “1, is lesser than 2.” That shit makes no sense. The correct way to say it is, “1, is less than, 2.” If your BS, equation was converted into words it would read: ‘Metalligod is lesser than ignorance’. Which is completely inane; just void of intelligence and proper tongue.

And BTW, If Metalligod is less than ignorance, then that would mean that I’m not ignorant at all. Ignorance, which is a negative, is being taken away in this instance. Therefore, I was correct in saying, ‘Metalligod has less ignorance’. Because if someone (in this case, you) says, ‘Metalligod is less than ignorance/ignorant’ it would mean that I’m less ignorant.

Which means Metalligod has less ignorance. Than who? In this case, YOU. “Well, Dig that! This guy is right.” (Guy=Metalligod, not Ashes) That was yet another example of your being childish, and being wrong along the way. (Damn it! The Natives are never wrong!)

Seriously, that was utterly a childish attempt to say, essentially, "I'm rubber, you're glue..."

Seriously, shut up. Because you were wrong yet again, and in being so, prove yet another point. You were yet again being childish, and you’ve misconstrued the purpose of my having said that. I was trying to show you that your ‘word games’, are childish, annoying, condescending, incessant, and extremely superfluous. Dig dat.

The statement about the dogs was an analogy? What for?

My saying that, was an obviously, unsuccessful attempt to show you that you misinterpret and misconstrue the things I say. No, it was not an analogy.

I was, in fact, referring to the one which didn't make sense. Simply put, it was not equivalent. That was the point. I edited the analogy so that both were speaking in the negative sense. A positive statement is not equivalent to a negative statement.

Actually you’re wrong yet again. (But I thought the natives…oh nevermind.) Your point is completely void. First, the negative and positives of the statements made them equivalent. My point in making the damned analogy was pointed out, had you paid attention you’d know this. The point Hex idiotically, tried to make was that, ‘There is no reason to believe that ninjas raided someone's house, and did not take anything.

Especially, without any proof of such a thing. Like wise, there is no reason to believe a god exists, because there is no proof to support such a thing’. I pointed out many times the flaws in this bullshit statement. Had you paid attention this would have become known to you.

Had you better sense, you’d realize that that statement is completely void of: intelligence, well thought out logic, and a far-more simpler scenario to solve than that in which a being with preternatural abilities is involved.

How my analogy correlates to this, is that, in my analogy: I say it is reasonable to believe that, since in one scenario, in which, evidence was left, that it is reasonable to believe that, ‘…’ did happen/take place. It is also reasonable to believe that since there was no evidence in the second scenario...

The ghosts did not enter the house. This must be true, because if they had, they would have left evidence. Even though they are ghosts. Even though this new scenario involves something vastly different, and far more complex than the simple scenario. Even though, the existence of ghost can’t be proven so easily. Yet it is still wise to believe such a thing.

-He’s saying that it is wise to make the same inferences about physically bound creatures and creations that aren’t physically bound. How then, is this not equivalent to his scenario. (Note that you said his ‘scenario’, was an analogy, yet it takes two scenarios to make an analogy. But as we now know, the natives are never wrong.)-

I pointed out that the being could have left evidence billions of years ago. And any evidence left by the being however many years ago it came here, could be long gone or buried to do the many changes Earth has gone through.

Also, this being with its abilities could have been on this planet yesterday or today and there is no way we could know it unless they wanted us to. I pointed out that the lack of evidence means in no way something did not happen.

I pointed out our being here, is good enough evidence to believe that a higher being put us here. Where the hell did we come from? No answer? Isn’t it logical to believe that a being with preternatural powers could have put us here? If not, why? What’s so illogical about the idea of such things?

I then pointed out that there is no evidence to support the so-called facts that Neutron Stars are made the way they are. No man has ever gone to a Neutron Star and analyzed its make-up. Not to my knowledge anyway. Is it illogical to believe that Neutron Stars aren’t the way scientists say they are?

All the so-called ‘Scientific Evidence’ to backup such claims are mere conjectures. Conjectures are things, I believe, he implied were inadmissible. Implicated that they aren’t very good reason to believe in anything, and are retarded at that.

But I recall him, heroically coming to your add to tell falsehoods about Neutron Stars, which by the way, are mere Conjectures. Need I further stress the ‘why’s’ of how irrational, unrepresentative, unintelligent, unwise and unbelieveable his anaology is/was? Need I further reiterate to you that I’ve already given damned good reason as to why what he says is stupid.

And also, how stupid, pathetic and inhumanly faulty his logic is? And finally, how you need to pay better attention and learn to comprehend the things you read? Need I oh, Great One? If I do, then so what. If you can’t understand the ‘why’s’ by now, then you never will, and that is a PP.

I don't follow. Where in the quoted passage did I mistype a possessive? I didn't even use a possessive, near as I can tell.

You don’t follow because you’re not mentally capable of doing so. If you were half as smart as you try and appear to be, you would had note the tone of my entire post. –Sarcasm- I was trying to stress an issue to you, that you and your little friends have this little ‘silent law’ that whatever isn’t said by you guys is not correct.

For instance the ‘Neutron Star Fiasco’ you and Hex (whatta coincidence.) were bitchin about ‘Neutron this and Neutron that’. In all the garble, you (plural) constantly growled that what I was saying about the theoretical thing (the Star), was wrong. When I proved what I had said to be true, the bitchin didn’t stop. And somehow, I was still wrong about everything. Dig yet?

In regards to your disproving Hex's analogy, all I can remember you stating was, to paraphrase, "it's too simple." Was there more to your statement?

Wow, yet more proof of your apparent misconstruing, and mal-comprehension. “I understand you posts” so you say. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif) Obvious that the opposite is the ultimate truth. Again, (Huh, how I hate repeating myself for the sake of the blind) had you paid better attention, or any attention at all, you would better comprehend things.

O, and I notice that several sections were not quoted. Are you conceding those?

No I’m not, the truth of the matter is/was that I’d grown tired of your constant Passovers of what I say. This statement, to which I am now replying is more proof of what I say. I constantly said that I was throwing up my arms, that you are right.

I needn’t take the time to prove to you what you refuse to see and/or comprehend. (Yes I do believe that you choose not to comprehend some things.) You constantly ask question to which I’ve previously given answers. Such as the one I’m responding to and others that I’ve gone ahead and reasserted.

And since you didn’t answer the questions or make a response to the things I said on page 2, are you/were you conceding those? Since you did not make a response in ‘Limitations’ are you conceding your arguments on that subject?

BTW: It sickens me that you’d dare make the BS replies on this subject that you’ve made. (Hex’s so-called analogy, -subject.) When I made a scenario that proved his so-called analogy wrong. I think I made more than one scenario to prove his BS wrong. So to ask questions about the situation makes you a liar, how? I’ll let you do the figuring. Concede

And before I go, I want to bring something to your attention. You are a very wishy washy person. But as you’ve said, “Personalities aren’t important.” Which, BTW is complete BS. Now onto your -wishy washyness- first you, by asking this question, show that it is one of your points, you say, “how can you expect that they would acknowledge your existence? For, to leave no evidence behind, you cannot interact with their physical world.”

You then say/ask, “Why must a god care what anyone on this lil' planet does?” This means either you now see things on that issue my way, or you asked the question for the sake of arguing, starting a bicker fest, being childish, the whole kabootz.

Which was/is it? And then on the other part of what I quoted above. How does leaving no trace on earth, in anyway signify that one could not interact with the physical world? Makes no sense to me. So, how then?

Metalligod, out.

:learntocomprehendthings|identiclequestionsareanno ying|readthoroughly|learntodetect

sarcasm|bemoreopenminded|stopbeingso

childish|wordgamesaregay|stopbehaving

likeapresidentieandavoid

questions|endtheinvisiblehierarchyandfinallygobuya BSdecoderto

bettersiftthroughthisstuffortobetter

understandmypostswhichyoutreatlikethe

yareincode:

[This message has been edited by Metalligod (edited 05-10-2004).]

[This message has been edited by Metalligod (edited 05-11-2004).]

Hexadecimal

2004-05-09, 04:13

Metalligod, with such poor linguistics, reading one of your posts is pretty much like converting a code.

And my analogy stands up to your scrutiny. I provided a premise that shows the relations between the analogous words; the qualities of these relations are the same on both sides of the analogy, making it analogous, and therefor logically sound. Your criticism of it rests on the quality of a god and it's interaction with the universe being more complex; that isn't what the premise of the analogy deals with, it deals with the burden of proof. In both sides of the analogy, the positive claim has the burden of proof and fails to supply evidence, making it a ridiculous claim. You are fucking stupid if you cannot see that.

ashesofzen

2004-05-09, 21:34

Metalligod:

Great example, Ashes... ...and you’re very childish as well.

Metalligod (excerpted): (http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/002495-3.htm)

...A fuckin jellyfish could understand it if someone says, ‘from atom’. Sense you and he can’t understand the phrase ‘from atom’ then I suggest you come into this century...

Sounds like you are implying that someone who cannot understand your usage is stupid, to me.

(Ok, lets start here: “Retroactive Edit”)... ...a living example of being ignorant’-ignorance.

No. It doesn't mean "you are a living example of being ignorant;" it simpy means ashesofzen is equal to ignorance. Now, if you replace ignorance with a definition from up there, you get:

ashesofzen is equal to being ignorant. That sentence makes no sense. I was trying to point that out, tongue-in-cheek, but it doesn't seem to be working.

More proof of your... ...(Damn it! The Natives are never wrong!)

Fine, if you like less than more, we'll use that. However, you still can't you use "has." Numbers, for example, don't have values, they are values.

Now, if we're using ignorance and ignorant interchangeably (you seem to have), we'll end up with:

Metalligod < ignorance or ignorant

Metalligod < ignorant

Metalligod is less than ignorant.

Now, being as you've given ignorant as "lacking knowledge and/or comprehension," what could be less than that? Perhaps, being incapable of changing that state? Any other ways?

"And BTW:" 1. < has absolutely nothing to do with "taking away." That is called subtraction. < is a sign of comparision. We, in this case, are comparing you to ignorance (or ignorant), and we find you lacking. (I, at least, break even http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif) ) What you're saying isn't even possible if we replace the qualative terms with numbers. 2. How, exactly, is ignorance negative? Explain, please?

My saying that, was an obviously, unsuccessful attempt to show you that you misinterpret and misconstrue the things I say. No, it was not an analogy.

And, did it not end up showing you the opposite?

Actually you’re wrong yet again.... ...did not take anything.

"...the negative and positives (sic) of the statements made them equivalent." Really, they do? Funny, I learned in school that the phrases "a=1" and "a/=1" (/= representing "not equal") were entirely different. So, tell me, how do you resolve these statements to make them equivalent? That is, let us say that a=5:

a/=4 (true statement)

a=3 (false statement)

Now, as long as we don't know the actual value for a (which is 5), both the statements for a are consistent--that is, possible in relation to each other. However, a/=4 gives support to many, many numbers. Sure, 5 is in that group, but everything that isn't four is, as well.

A negative is not equivalent to a positive.

How my analogy correlates to this, is that, in my analogy: I say it is reasonable to believe that, since in one scenario, in which, evidence was left, that it is reasonable to believe that, ‘…’ did happen/take place. It is also reasonable to believe that since there was no evidence in the second scenario.

So, to restate,

X had my lighter; therefore, X took my lighter.

is as reasonable as

X did not have my lighter; therefore, X took my lighter.

I fucking dare you to take that to any respectable professor/logician and tell him it's true.

It is did not happen/or the opposite... ...believe such a thing.

I can't decode the syntax, so I can't respond.

-He’s saying that it is wise to make the same inferences about physically bound creatures and creations that aren’t physically bound. How then, is this not equivalent to his scenario. (Note that you said his ‘scenario’, was an analogy, yet it takes two scenarios to make an analogy. But as we now know, the natives are never wrong.)-

Well, if we cannot infer anything about creatures that aren't physically bound, we cannot even debate about them. Why are you here, in that case?

I pointed out that the being... ...changes Earth has gone through.

Same thing applies to the ninjas; perhaps, they left "ninjium" in trace amounts; ninjium has a half life of 1 x 10e-100 000 000 and decays (by a little understood mechanism) into mundane elements without putting out any known type of radiation.

Also, this being... ...something did not happen.

Again, it's the same thing with Hex's ninjas.

I pointed out our being... ...idea of such things?

Natural processes? No, it's not logical if the being is outside logic. Saying that assumption without evidence is logical opens the door to assumption that every random boogeyman and superstition deserves belief. It's not inherently contradictory to say that a "higher being" put us here; however, without evidence, this explanation fails by Occam's Razor.

I then pointed out that there... ...scientists say they are?

No evidence? None? Are you certain? No man has ever gone to the sun, does that mean that we are incapable of observing it? The planets, we cannot learn anything about them because we cannot land on them and examine their make-up?

It's not illogical to doubt the scientific viewpoint of a neutron star--however, if you're going to, you'd better have a theory that explains all of the observed phenomena involved just as well as current theory does.

All the so-called ‘Scientific Evidence’... ...and that is a PP.

1. Scientific evidence is just a lot of conjectures? Do tell.

2. So far, it seems that none of the points you've brought up have really stood up to examination.

3. Faulty logic? Like the logic I applied to the "Boc, and Zoc dogs?"

4. Reading comprehension: perfect on ACT, perfect on GED, 99th percentile on ASVAB, 99th to perfect on SAT, 98-99th on PSAT (these are rough estimates, i may be wrong on which tests I scored what on). Fuck you, I'm more capable at reading then you'll ever be.

5. Learn to write more effectively.

You don’t follow... ...And somehow, I was still wrong about everything. Dig yet?

Bringing up old ghosts, eh? Do you really want to know why we didn't stop? Here, I'll explain as simply as possible:

M advances the claim "All matter is atomic."

A (or H, I forget which) rebuts "Neutron stars are not atomic in nature; are they not matter?"

M finds evidence that the crust is, in fact atomic. "Neutron stars have an iron crust."

A and H point out: "This does not change that the rest of the star is not atomic in nature. Therefore, there are still some types of matter that are not atomic. Therefore, M's first claim is false."

Do you understand that whole argument, now? That was all that we (Hex and I) were trying to get across. Do you not remember that I conceded on your claim about the crust? How's that for our little cabal thinking we're infallible?

You then say/ask, “Why must a god care what anyone on this lil' planet does?” This means either you now see things on that issue my way, or you asked the question for the sake of arguing, starting a bicker fest, being childish, the whole kabootz.

It was a rebuttal. Whether you agree with the statement, or not, is your affair.

Which was/is it? And then on the other part of what I quoted above. How does leaving no trace on earth, in anyway signify that one could not interact with the physical world? Makes no sense to me. So, how then?

I'm not trying to prove anything in the "airtight" sense. I merely think that your viewpoint, as you've stated it, leads to either a) logical contradiction or b) a requirement for belief in everything. As for interaction, "Neutrinos, anyone?"

Hexadecimal

2004-05-09, 22:35

I'm just fucking tired of argueing with this prick. Ashes, you're more than capable of crushing his arguements...have fun.

Metalligod

2004-05-10, 04:06

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

I'm just fucking tired of argueing with this prick. Ashes, you're more than capable of crushing his arguements...have fun.

Who was arguing with yo gay ass? I lost interest in you far too long ago, so what the hell are you barking about, bitch? Who bothered to speak to you? Not me. So again bitch, what are you barking about?

I forgot all about you, notice that your name came up only when speaking about stupidity. Nobody cared to hear/see/read from you, no one needed your input on anything. So what the fuck are you talking about? You are right though, Ashes is far more capable than you are, hell, ants are more capable, hell, parameciums are more capable than you are.

Hexadecimal

2004-05-10, 06:24

Perhaps if everything I type is stupid you'd have been able to throw up a solid arguement against it, but you rely on attacking me and strawmen rather than the points I've made; fuck you, you have not even basic reading comprehension and never concede a motherfucking point when ANYONE besides yourself can see you are wrong. You practice faulty logic, faulty reasoning, and faulty comprehension. Fuck you, eat my ass, and go get yourself a nice 'ol protein shake straight from a horse's cock, you fucking retard.

skoolboy_arts

2004-05-10, 06:41

if god doesnt exist....why r we here? if some of u people will say that we evolved,who created our ancestors then? and so on...who created the universe? isnt the big bang theory gods work? its like a huge miracle...cus we duno wut caused it..so there myt be a god.

Hexadecimal

2004-05-10, 07:46

Yes, there may be an inital starting force, or the universe may be on a loop of expand/contract...however, there's still no reason to call the first action (if one exists) a god.

ashesofzen

2004-05-10, 08:52

skoolboy_arts:

if god doesnt exist....why r we here?

Because the environment in which we live is capable of sustaining life. Or, if you're asking what our purpose is, I must ask, "Why must there be one?"

if some of u people will say that we evolved,who created our ancestors then?

cf. Evolution vs. Creation : It's Going Down (http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/002481.html)

and so on...who created the universe?

When has it been shown that there must be a Creator?

isnt the big bang theory gods work?

Only if you stretch Divine Inspiration really far.

its like a huge miracle...cus we duno wut caused it..so there myt be a god.

What exactly is a miracle? As for the "might of god," I'll repeat what I've said before: Possibility is cute, but probability is just plain hot.

edit: Spelling.

[This message has been edited by ashesofzen (edited 05-10-2004).]

Kw0nLiE

2004-05-10, 08:59

if you ask a stupid question like "can you proove god's existance?" you're only gonna get a bunch of shit about quantom physics like these bastards did in my thread a few pages back called "god or science",it got to the point where i just couldn't understand what the fuck they were taking about and i said "ok if god exists,proove it and i will believe in god" and after that shit...boom the whole fuckin thread became a bunch of dumbass retarded fuckin posts explaining the existance of god using fucking quantom phsics.

i mean if you gotta take it that far,to the point of explaining the existance of god with quantom physics which is a subject that only approx 17% of the worlds population comprehend,then it really isn't worth it,,,just say "fuck it,god don't exist"

ashesofzen

2004-05-10, 09:09

You'd better go to bed thankful tonight for all of the men in the past who didn't just say "fuck it" when dealing with a difficult subject.

You're life is one hell of a lot better due to their work.

Metalligod

2004-05-11, 00:55

Sounds like you are implying that someone who cannot understand your usage is stupid, to me.

Well I can’t determine where you got that sound, because what I meant was that a stupid person could understand it. That was made quite palpable by my saying, “A fuckin jellyfish could understand it”, because as far as I know, jellyfish don’t have brains.

Now is this true or false? So by my having said such a thing, isn’t it easy to conclude that what I meant was, ‘even a brainless being/creature/person could understand it? And that being so, wouldn’t that mean that I was saying ‘even a stupid person could understand this’?

Since you love so much to take things and look for deeper meanings than what they actually mean. Since you love so much to take what I say and logic it to death (by this I mean, taking what I say and replying with BS like, ‘It could be taken as though you mean ‘…’’).

Since you love to look so deep into things, why is it that you totally missed the actual, obvious meaning to what I said?

No. It doesn't mean "you are a living example of being ignorant;" it simpy means ashesofzen is equal to ignorance. Now, if you replace ignorance with a definition from up there, you get:

Are you a living being? If I say that you are equal to being ignorant, aren’t you a living example of being ignorant? Just in case you say that I didn’t say, ‘you are equal to being ignorant’. Me-“Ashes=ignorance”. Now lets see:

Ignorance-Main Entry: ig·no·rance

Pronunciation: 'ig-n(&-)r&n(t)s

Function: noun

Date: 13th century

: the state or fact of being IGNORANT

Doesn’t that indeed mean that, you are equal to being ignorant? And since the case happens to be, that you are a living creature, doesn’t that also mean that I’m saying, you are a living example of being ignorant? Since the case also happens to be that ignorance is the State of Being ‘Ignorant’? Therefore, your reply was a complete and utterly lame attempt at trying to be right.

Now also on this, you’ve proven once again to be a liar. You did not say or rather try and stress the statement, “ashesofzen is equal to being ignorant. That sentence makes no sense. I was trying to point that out,” You tried lamely, to stress, “ Actually, you did not say I was equivalent to ignorant, you said I was equivalent to ignorance.”

There was no part in any of what you said, that you were trying to get your false point across, which was, “ ashesofzen is equal to being ignorant. That sentence makes no sense.”. And anyway, that sentence makes complete sense, fuckin half-wit.

Lets play a game, which you love so much to do, I’ll replace ignorant with the definition I was talking about. “Ashesofzen is equal to being destitute of knowledge or education.” (I meant ‘and’ not ‘or’, cause it’s obvious that both are the case.) Which BTW, means you are a living example of being ignorant. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif) So fuckin lame dude, you really need to grow up. (BTW- that is the very first definition, and most common use of the word.

However, you still can't you use "has." Numbers, for example, don't have values, they are values.

Ok, lets start with this BS (meaning your italicized response.). Value- 4 a : a numerical quantity that is assigned or is determined by calculation or measurement. So, again you’re a LIAR. Numbers do have value. Sorry…, no not me, you’re a sorry being. Another lame attempt to be ‘right’, when you’ve been proven ‘wrong’.

Like I said, what I’ve been saying about the natives was/is completely true. We are talking about the amount of an substance (abstract) someone has. So numbers have value in this case. Now what will be your next lame attempt to be right, even though you know you’re wrong? Therefore I was correct in saying, “Metalligod has less ignorance.” It refers to the wuantity of something, so numbers have value, need I explain this deeper, or are you catching on? Or will you just remain oblivious and in doing so, retain your Ignorance?

"And BTW:" 1. < has absolutely nothing to do with "taking away." That is called subtraction.[i/]

Are you truly this fuckin stupid? This is frighteningly hilarious. ‘Metalligod is less than ignorant’, or ‘Metalligod has less ignorance’. That is the proper way to say it; we are talking about the amount of something. When talking about amounts you’re not supposed to say, ‘Metalligod is less than ignorance’, you’ve shown your ignorance by saying, ‘Metalligod is less than ignorance’.

That shit again makes NO SENSE. It’s a quantitative situation, so we say, ‘has less’. So in saying, ‘Metalligod has less ignorance’ (Which is the proper way) would mean subtraction. Dig yet?

When talking about ‘greater than, less than’ things, you are talking about quantity.(Only things are said different when using numbers. For example> ) And in saying that 5<10, you are saying five is less than 10. Which means five has less value than ten, or has less quantitative properties.

Now if you don’t think this is the case, then ask yourself, ‘What makes 10 greater?’. Especially when, for some unknown reason, you believe numbers don’t have values, ‘in this instance’.

AnyFuckingWay, numbers by mathematical definition have values, have you ever heard of ‘Absolute Value’? 8 and –8, have an absolute value of ‘8’. ‘1’ has a value of ‘1’, and ‘2’ has a value of ‘2’. And it’s well known that ‘2’ has more value than ‘1’. Especially since, (Let me point out again) We’re talking about quantity! I would love to see you say it your way. –‘2 is more value than 1.’-

[I] We, in this case, are comparing you to ignorance (or ignorant), and we find you lacking.

Yeah and in comparing me to that, you are saying that you believe I am less than something. How can I be less if you aren’t talking about the quantity of something? What makes me less? The lack of something, so therefore, it is a matter of the quantity of something.

How, exactly, is ignorance negative? Explain, please?

Ignorance means that there is a lack of intelligence, and the lack of ability to know things. Since you did not know that, you shouldn’t have been using the damned word. Retard.

And, did it not end up showing you the opposite?

I’m not trying to be funny but, could you explain what ‘it’ means?

"...the negative and positives (sic) of the statements made them equivalent." Really, they do? Funny, I learned in school that the phrases "a=1" and "a/=1" (/= representing "not equal") were entirely different. So, tell me, how do you resolve these statements to make them equivalent? That is, let us say that a=5:

Can you not read? I explained specifically that both of our analogies had the same message. Had you read it you’d know that. I don’t like repeating myself, so don’t ask me to do it could. His BS, says, that it is wise to infer that all situations alike will have the same outcome. And that is not true. He believes that because in his Ninja dumbalogy, there really were no ninjas, it is intelligent to believe that in another situation if no evidence is left then the incident didn’t take place.

Which is gay, just like Hex, and complete narrow-minded BS. Hex seems to shit out of his mouth, cause he aint done nothing but talk shit. Or the excrement comes out the his finger tips, because the so-called logic that spilled from his mind-(Something I’m convinced he doesn’t have), through his fingertips, reeks of grotesque stupidity.

They carry the Exact Same Message, that’s how the fuck they are equated. Dumbass. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif) Had you been capable of reading and comprehending what you’ve read, then this you’d know.

I can't decode the syntax, so I can't respond.

My bad, I added ‘is’ by accident. Completely my fault, now there is no decoding that needs to take place.

Well, if we cannot infer anything about creatures that aren't physically bound, we cannot even debate about them. Why are you here, in that case?

When did I say we couldn’t infer anything about creatures that aren’t physically bound? Plz do tell. I recall stating only that it is stupid to make the inference, ‘the being left no evidence, so therefore they don’t exist’.

That’s a gay logic applied to a being with, again, PRETERNATURAL CAPABILITIES.

Onto second question-Do you mean in this thread? If so, because I tried to point out to someone that a lack of evidence proves nothing but the fact that there is a lack of evidence. When I did this, I was ganged up on, by you and others.

I then got caught up in a long string of BS threads with BS logic. I’m here because I also trying to stress to people that the idea that a god made us, is not an unwise thing to consider. That the lack of evidence that this creature exists means in no way that this creature doesn’t exist. Especially when it could be a god, being a god and all, you could manipulate surroundings so that no evidence is left.

Natural processes? No, it's not logical if the being is outside logic.

What makes you believe that the being is out of logic? And when did I say that the being was out of logic? And ‘Natural Processes’??? WTF???

Saying that assumption without evidence is logical opens the door to assumption that every random boogeyman and superstition deserves belief.

What the fuck are you talking about? When did I say that, ‘Assumption without evidence is logical’? What assumption without evidence have I made? And again, When the fuck did I say, ‘Assumption without evidence is logical’?

It's not inherently contradictory to say that a "higher being" put us here; however, without evidence, this explanation fails by Occam's Razor.

Ok, I get it, you’re slow. You cannot read, I believe our very being here is possible proof/evidence that a deity exists. I believe our very being is reason enough to believe that a deity exists. No, I don’t know if one truly does, but I believe that there is good reason to believe that one possibly does. Your friend, as well as you, from what I’ve heard so far, believe it is unreasonable to believe in the idea of something that there is no proof of. Your friend believes the idea should be dismissed altogether.

But as I’ve said already, Jeremy killed Mary-Sue, yet there is no evidence that proves such. Thus giving everyone no reason to believe Jeremy really did ‘off’ the bitch. But that in no way means that he truly didn’t. Because, as I’ve already explained, he did kill her. The lack of evidence proved nothing, save for the fact that there was/is ‘a lack of evidence’. Why it is soooooo inconceivable to your friend and you, that no existing evidence can’t/doesn’t prove nor disprove anything. Is completely out of my realm of knowing.

No evidence? None? Are you certain? No man has ever gone to the sun, does that mean that we are incapable of observing it?

So… what’s your point?

The planets, we cannot learn anything about them because we cannot land on them and examine their make-up?

What the Fuck are you talking about? I’ve never said any of those things, nor did I ever imply them. Lay off the drugs. Maybe then you’ll be able to understand things, and stop making things up. You’re showing your true nature, you babbling, fuckin drunk.

1. Scientific evidence is just a lot of conjectures? Do tell.

I needn’t explain anything, theories are conjecture by definition. You not knowing such things prove you to be void of being capable of discussion on anything we’ve talked about. Have you ever heard of a ‘hypothesis’?

So far, it seems that none of the points you've brought up have really stood up to examination.

That’s because you are too blind and unintelligent to comprehend them.

Faulty logic? Like the logic I applied to the "Boc, and Zoc dogs?"

Precisely. I’ve already explained why your so-called logic was weak.

Reading comprehension: perfect on ACT, perfect on GED, 99th percentile on ASVAB, 99th to perfect on SAT, 98-99th on PSAT (these are rough estimates, i may be wrong on which tests I scored what on). Fuck you, I'm more capable at reading then you'll ever be.

Yeah, so you say. And the correct word is ‘than’ not ‘then’. Your percentiles are looking real good right about now. http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Learn to write more effectively.

Learn to read more effectively.

M advances the claim "All matter is atomic."A (or H, I forget which) rebuts "Neutron stars are not atomic in nature; are they not matter?"M finds evidence that the crust is, in fact atomic. "Neutron stars have an iron crust."A and H point out: "This does not change that the rest of the star is not atomic in nature. Therefore, there are still some types of matter that are not atomic. Therefore, M's first claim is false."

M, later points out that he said, ‘all matter is made of atoms and/or the individual parts that make them up’. Or rather, ‘and all the subatomic particles’(which M actually said).

A, says what about photons? Or, ‘Photons come to mind’. Or, something of that nature. M, ignored him, because he knows, A, is just a stupid person, who will do anything to make himself feel like/believe he’s right, in his own mind. M, didn’t bother to point out that photons are just measurements of light.

And light is just radiation, and radiation is just energy discharged in waves. And all that proves what I was saying, which was, ‘Everything is made of atoms and/or the subatomic parts that make them up’. And both he, and Hex have yet to prove me wrong. (BTW- by everything I meant, everything in the physical world.)

Therefore M’s first claim was not false, and it proves stupidity and deceit from A and H, because he had indeed reiterate the fact that he did indeed say, ‘…and the subatomic parts that make them’.

Do you understand that whole argument, now? That was all that we (Hex and I) were trying to get across. Do you not remember that I conceded on your claim about the crust? How's that for our little cabal thinking we're infallible?

Do you still not understand how I proved you(plural) wrong? Yes I remember you conceded on the crust part, because you were wrong. And as for your group thinking you’re perfect, well when you’re wrong as much as you are…

It was a rebuttal. Whether you agree with the statement, or not, is your affair.

Ok, I’ve now deduced the fact that your impaired. Because I was never bringing up whether or not it was/is your rebuttal. I simply asked if you now saw things on that issue my way. Because I recall asking you that very question to show you how irrelevant your question was when you asked the very thing he (skool boy) is asking you. To which you responded with the very question that I asked you in return, which was, ‘Why should God/god care?’

Now whether or not you’ve suddenly developed a brain and could now understand that, is your affair. I just thought I’d explain it to watch and see if you’d now understand it, or if you’ll be totally oblivious to what I say. I think I know the answer already, you’ll…drum roll...

I'm not trying to prove anything in the "airtight" sense.

WTF??? Who said you were?

I merely think that your viewpoint, as you've stated it, leads to either a) logical contradiction or b) a requirement for belief in everything. As for interaction, "Neutrinos, anyone?"

That’s simply because you didn’t don’t pat well enough attention to what I say. However, the italicized above has nothing to do with my questions which were, “How does leaving no trace on earth, in anyway signify that one could not interact with the physical world? Makes no sense to me. So, how then?”

hand_made_attrocity

2004-05-11, 01:37

Metalligod, what are you trying to prove? Why do you continue posting? You are unable to use difficult words effectively in sentences, you are unable to form complete sentences, you are unable to use punctuation, you are unable to comprehend basic mathematics, and you have yet to show that you posses any kind of intelligence. You are very foolish to suggest others have no brain simply because they do not follow the ramblings of an uneducated and extremely ignorant (yes, you are ignorant; and no, you dont know what it means or when/how to use it) moron. I hope this will not provoke you to write another post where you will use profanity in an attempt to insult my intelligence, because not only would that be predicatable, it would be very pathetic.

Metalligod

2004-05-11, 01:38

Metalligod-Hexatrampyho(only the complete paragraphs)

Perhaps if everything I type is stupid you'd have been able to throw up a solid arguement against it, but you rely on attacking me and strawmen rather than the points I've made;

Perhaps if you’d learn to read, you’d know by now that I’ve brought up many points that prove why your BS analogy does not hold true/plausible/intelligent. I raised my arguments first against your logic. It was far much later down the line that I began to smite you.

I not once said anything derogatory about you until you told me to fuck a cow. To which I responded… wait I didn’t. I tried to keep up civility with you, but you chose not to. Therefore I chose to ignore you.

I later said a few practically unnoticeable things about you hear and there. For instance I’ve called you: bitches, fags, blah blah blah.

I began responding only to Ashes, and to the cocksucker, Hand_made_Attocity, whose name says it all. I did not want to argue with you cause I had realized that you were extremely childish, stuck in your ways, gay and stupid. Though I hate Ashes, I really do.

I like the guy for some completely inane, and indefinite reason. As much as I call him this and that, I know he’s not nearly as stupid as you. Which is why I keep up conversation with him, even though he’s arrogant, annoying, childish, imbecilic at times, condescending, sarcastic (though fails to detect such from others), nit-picky, and preternaturally retarded.

I believe he has more to offer conversationally and intellectually than you could ever. You’ve even admitted so, in your own little ways. He’s definitely challenging, definitely worthy of challenge, most of the time. Though most of it is do to misunderstanding. We’re both using English but it by no means seems that way.

(Though I guess I've shut him up with my reasoning, because he has yet to rebut or answer my question on Gods' omniscience, and omnipotence. An issue on which he said my logic and reasoning was stupid.)

fuck you

No thanx, as I’ve said, I don’t do farm animals. Genetic mishaps(A.K.A. YOU!)

you have not even basic reading comprehension and never concede a motherfucking point when ANYONE besides yourself can see you are wrong.

You’ve yet to point out how and why I’m so wrong. Therefore you should shut your shit-hole, you fuckin gay-frat toilet-faced bitch.

You practice faulty logic,

Sorry, my BS Decoder brakes when I scanned your posts, and quite frankly I think you should reimburse me for it. Because now I can’t understand you BS.

faulty reasoning, and faulty comprehension.

Yeah, you’re bitchin. Believe me, I could actually hear it. However you’ve, as I’ve previously pointed out, yet to prove your accusations. Show/say the how(s) and why(s), I hear/see only your bitchin. Oh, I bet I’ll have to silence the bitch. *Prepares Shotgun*

Fuck you, eat my ass,

Not hungry.

and go get yourself a nice 'ol protein shake straight from a horse's cock,

Sorry, not you mother. I’ve never had an attraction to Mr. Ed, as did she, which by some phenomenon or rather atrocity, you were conceived. (BTW-Great phrase, I might use that one day.)

you fucking retard.

I’m not a fuckin retard bitch. I’m just a retard. Now get it right, Shit-faced Cockmaster.

:Sorry had to add:

Metalligod, out.

:Hexatrampyho!plzleavemealone:

[This message has been edited by Metalligod (edited 05-11-2004).]

Metalligod

2004-05-11, 02:22

Metalligod, what are you trying to prove?

So this proves one point, she can’t read. If she could she wouldn’t ask such a stupid question. Or would she?

Why do you continue posting?

To learn and to spread knowledge. Wow, a good question from this used maxi pad-oral blood extractor? My, the gods!

You are unable to use difficult words effectively in sentences, you are unable to form complete sentences, you are unable to use punctuation, you are unable to comprehend basic mathematics, and you have yet to show that you posses any kind of intelligence.

And you have proved you know little beyond use of the word ‘and’. You’ve also proven to be a liar, whom has no basis for their argument. You’ve proven that you have no real human socially interactive life, outside of this website. You’ve proven that you make accusations without merit.

Some being my supposed: inability to use punctuation, form complete sentences, mal-comprehension of basic math, show intelligence, and use difficult words effectively.

Now first you’ve already shown your lack of intelligence by making this post, which has no merit. Second, you’ve also shown it by admitting that there are difficult words. Which BTW, is complete opinion. And all of the words that I’ve used I used because they aren’t difficult to me.

Furthermore, all of my posts are compiled of complete sentences, which proves that your post to which I am now replying, was made to see if anyone would agree with you. And that is your way of finding friends, because you obviously have none.

You expected people to go, ‘yeah you tell em HMA’. But no one has because even they know your claims are false, without merit, petty, bias, childish and unintelligent. No one has jumped on the bandwagon because your claims came from nothing more than the hopes of wiggling your way into a discussion, which is far beyond your realm of intelligence.

-Now, I wish she’d show that of which she’s accusing me.- Plz do show these things you’ve accused me of women, and I assure you that you’ll make many friends, because you’ll have shut me up. I’ve learned on this site, that if you do have a claim you have to back it up with facts. Which is right now the only good aspect of it, because quite obvious that Totse is being overrun and infested with moronism. Of which, you’re a perfect example.

You are very foolish to suggest others have no brain simply because they do not follow the ramblings of an uneducated and extremely ignorant (yes, you are ignorant; and no, you dont know what it means or when/how to use it) moron.

So she’s noticed that no one follows your ramblings and brainless stupidity? And that’s why no one has yet to applaud her foolish efforts to out-trash talk me, a thing which I’ve not even given the faintest efforts to contend. And BTW, intelligent people don’t try and trash talk by calling someone synonymous things, it is redundant and lame, for this reason you’re the only one doing it.

Well, and Hex, though not even he has applauded you, for the very reason that maybe he sees what you’re doing for what it is. And will try, instead of just blurting BS, to prove why he’s right.-Hopefully he will, I certainly believe so.

I hope this will not provoke you to write another post where you will use profanity in an attempt to insult my intelligence

Plz, I needn’t say anything to insult your intelligence. All that I have to do is watch and wait for you to post.That alone will show that I needn’t insult you, you’ve done it to yourself. That way everyone will see, without my effort, that you are stupid. Which you’ve already done, which is what I’m now pointing out. Good day.

hand_made_attrocity

2004-05-11, 03:42

I guess I do owe you thanks for providing me with some laughs, I didnt expect I could so easily entice you. Do you enjoy spending all your of your time writing those lengthy posts? I hope so, otherwise this cant be anyless then torture for you. My approach short sweet, and to the point, got that you simple minded faggot. And hey, at least I was right about that "atom" thing... thats all, I'm satisfied.

jm5k

2004-05-11, 03:48

People are a little crazy.. I'll just clear it up.

God doesn't exist.

KikoSanchez

2004-05-11, 04:09

You atheists so silly http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

ashesofzen

2004-05-11, 04:11

Some sections have been ignored; I'm not gonna bother to respond to them--I'll try to make everything as clear as possible. However, you should abandon this idiotic insistence on calling me stupid and try to get back to pointing out the flaws in Hex's analogy. You've thus far dropped all rebuttal of every point I've made in his favor and instead focused on the rather extraneous personal arguments. Granted, I'm not blameless; however, my refusal to let you call me stupid in such an obviously, fundamentally illogical way should be fairly understandable. No one likes to be badmouthed.

Metalligod:

Well I can’t determine where you got that... ...obvious meaning to what I said?

Whatever, then. If you were implying that even something brainless could understand your usage, and none of us could understand it, then you weren't saying that we were all stupid? Was I supposed to read that and say "Metalligod is telling us we're too smart to understand 'atom?'" Personally, it seemed like you were calling us all less intelligent than a jellyfish. Which would be quite stupid, indeed. If that's not what you were implying, my apologies for misinterpreting the passage.

Are you a living being... ...and most common use of the word.

ashesofzen=ignorance

"ashesofzen" could therfore be used to replace "ignorance" in a sentence. Additionally, as per our later parameters, "ashesofzen" could replace "ignorant" in a sentence.

Now, let us try to sentences:

ashesofzen is bliss.

You are one ashesofzen motherfucker.

Tell me, as my handle refers to me, a specific person, does that make any contextual sense? E. g., if my name is Adam, do "Adam is bliss" and "you are one Adam motherfucker" make sense?

"Ignorance" is a quality. To say that I am equivalent to a quality means about as much as saying:

ashesofzen=happiness

Does it make sense to say "ashesofzen is equal to happiness?"

Ok, lets start with this... ...retain your Ignorance?

So, tell me, if you remove the quantive feature of a number, what's left? If a number is not a value, and merely has a value, what else are they? If I say "I have five apples," and five is not numeric, what exactly does it mean?

As for this damn comparison series, let's start from the first statments:

Metalligod < ashesofzen

ashesofzen = ignorance

therefore:

Metalligod < ignorance

Now, according to your interpretation, you can equally say "Metalligod has less ashesofzen" as "Metalligod has less ignorance." What the hell does that mean?

It isn't selective; either we're using "has," or we're using "is." "Has" makes no sense, in the traditional meaning. Also, if we're using "has," please explain the meaning of the phrase "ashesofzen has equal ignorance."

Are you truly this fuckin stupid......‘2 is more value than 1.’-

0. No.

1. The statement "Metalligod < ignorance" is not quantitative.

2. "Has less" does not mean "subtraction." If I say, "I have less tolerance for idiocy than Joe," I am making a *drumroll please* comparison.

3. 5 < 10 is, as you said, "five is less than 10." (emphasis added) Five and ten are values. If, for example, you say "five has a value," one is forced to ask "what value?" "Well, the value 'five,' of course." That is an internal definition. Again, I'll ask: If we removed the value ..... from "five," what else is left? What other meaning does the term "five" have?

4. Absolute value is a quality of a number. It is, roughly, the distance a number is from zero on a number line.

5. I wouldn't say "2 is more value than 1." I'd say "two is greater than one."

Yeah and in comparing me... ...the quantity of something.

That's why one shouldn't use mathematical terminology with qualitative language.

Ignorance means that there is a... ...Retard.

For some reason, I am reminded of temperature.

I’m not trying to be funny but, could you explain what ‘it’ means?

"It" referred to the whole "Boc, (sic) and Zoc dogs" argument.

Can you not read... ...then this you’d know...

It was a waste of time to type all that. You failed to rebut me. You have done nothing to back up your argument. Until you do so, the analogy holds. You can pull out as much character assassination, selective replying, and random rationalization as you want; however, until you start disproving the opposing arguments, you will not get any concessions. I showed why negative and positive statements aren't equivalent, you've done nothing to show my statements as wrong. Do that, and maybe we'll get somewhere.

...What makes you believe... ...WTF???

How else could a being exist which affects the world around us and leaves no evidence?

Metalligod (excerpted): (http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/002495-4.html)

...Where the hell did we come from? No answer?...

To which I replied: "Natural processes?"

Ok, I get it, you’re slow... ...the idea should be dismissed altogether.

We've been over this. Either a) your beliefs are logically inconsistent, or b) you belief anything without evidence.

But as I’ve said already... ...Is completely out of my realm of knowing.

And again, if there is no evidence, then Jeremy cannot be proven guilty. If you, as a prosecutor, claimed that the total void of evidence was itself proof that the accused has murdered Mary-Sue, do you think that your prosecution would get very far?

...I needn’t explain anything... ...heard of a ‘hypothesis...'

Theory is not the same as evidence. Seriously, you bitch about my inability to read, and then come up with this garbage? For a "babbling, fuckin drunk," I seem to have a better grasp of the situation than you. That said, you still need to explain why "scientific evidence is just a lot of conjectures."

M, later points out that he said... ‘…and the subatomic parts that make them’...

You seem to have forgotten that you edited your claim to state "atoms or subatomic particles" (to paraphrase). That was not your original claim.

Secondly, that claim (that is, "everything is made up of atoms and/or the subatomic parts that make them up") is wrong. Photons are not part of atoms. Antimatter, also. Neutrinos. Free quarks (I don't remember if these have been detected or not) of the four or so types not in protons or neutrons. Gravitons, perhaps. Several different subatomic particles not found in atomic matter. Tachyons (if they exist).

The insults are getting a bit stale, by-the-by. You're going to need to bust out that thesaurus soon, I want you to come up with some fresh ways to tell me how stupid I am.

edit: context changes.

[This message has been edited by ashesofzen (edited 05-11-2004).]

jm5k

2004-05-11, 04:21

The only way to argue religion is to ask them why does god exist? Then your down to the question why do we exist? But we gave up on that one because god created us, right? God is opinion, thats all it comes down to. There realy can't be any right or wrong at this current time. I think god doesn't exist, but I still have an idea that I could be wrong. People who believe in him just need to fess up that they just might be wrong.

Metalligod

2004-05-12, 03:07

Metalligod-Ashes(in completel para's)

Some sections have been ignored… No one likes to be badmouthed.

Dude, you’re a thinker, so start behaving like it. I know that no one likes to be badmouthed, (check for the big neon, Duh!, sign over your head) that’s why I badmouth you. If it were something you liked, then I obviously wouldn’t do it. You know that my badmouthing is my way of getting revenge. Every time you annoy me, which BTW you are very good at, I try and do something to annoy you. We’ve both pointed out that our little rivalry is petty. But we both still do the immature things we do, it’s our little way of playing, ‘hit me and I’ll hit you back’.

Whatever, then. If you were implying that even something brainless could understand your usage, and none of us could understand it, then you weren't saying that we were all stupid? Was I supposed to read that and say "Metalligod is telling us we're too smart to understand 'atom?'" Personally, it seemed like you were calling us all less intelligent than a jellyfish. Which would be quite stupid, indeed. If that's not what you were implying, my apologies for misinterpreting the passage.

Close but no cigar. I was trying to say that Jellyfish are very stupid, and that’s obvious because they don’t have brains. We, who have brains, should be able to figure what something so simple means. That is the crux of what I was saying.

ashesofzen=ignorance...

Aaaaaah! Wrong. I don’t understand why it is sooooooo hard to figure out. That, what I saying was the same thing as when a person says, “If I looked up ‘ugly’ in the dictionary, your picture would be there.” I meant in no way that the word ‘ignorance’ could be replaced with the word ‘Ashes’.

That makes no sense, and I thought it was obvious what I was saying. It was completely your fault for distorting the whole thing. You BTW, happen to be a living creature, regardless to whatever BS argument you’ll try and raise. Therefore, in my saying that, ‘Ashes=Ignorance’, means that you Ashes, a living being, are a living example of being ignorant. Because, as far as I know, ‘Ignorance’ is the act, fact or quality of being ignorant. Need the definition?

Main Entry: ig·no·rance

Pronunciation: 'ig-n(&-)r&n(t)s

Function: noun

Date: 13th century

: the state or fact of being ignorant

So, tell me, if you remove the quantive feature of a number, what's left? If a number is not a value, and merely has a value, what else are they? If I say "I have five apples," and five is not numeric, what exactly does it mean?

Well, well, well. The great English scholar, the reading wiz, doesn’t seem to know English all that well. Because as far as I know ‘quantive’ is not a word. I had a little trouble with this one. I sat staring at this sentence for a good 8 mins, and puzzled, thinking, ‘this guy’s got me beat’. As for the rest of what you say, it makes no sense, so I won’t bother trying to answer it.

As for this damn comparison series, let's start from the first statments:…

Hopefully you’ll realize the insignificance of this statement after you’ve read the third response section of this post.

To which I replied: "Natural processes?"

Who/what began/started the ‘Natural Processes’?

How else could a being exist which affects the world around us and leaves no evidence?

Firstly, that question makes no sense. And anyone trying to answer it will have a hard time because it doesn’t. If ya don’t mind, I’ll revise then answer.

[/I] How could a being exist, that affects the world around us and leaves no evidence?[/I]

Ok, now how could a being exist, that influences the world around us, but leaves no evidence? Well, as I’ve said before, if a god exists then they have preternatural abilities. So since they have these abilities they could come here in the guise of who/what ever they want to be. Which means that they could come and go as they wish, and leave no evidence that they, in all their glory, truly exists. See how simple it is?

We've been over this. Either a) your beliefs are logically inconsistent, or b) you belief anything without evidence.

Why/how are they logically inconsistent, and why are those the only two choices?

And again, if there is no evidence, then Jeremy cannot be proven guilty. If you, as a prosecutor, claimed that the total void of evidence was itself proof that the accused has murdered Mary-Sue, do you think that your prosecution would get very far?

See this is why I call you stupid and other various names. What the fuck does Jeremy not being proven guilty have to do with the overall point? You have just disproved you and Hex’s whole point. I’ve tried dearly to stress to the both of you, that a lack of evidence proves nothing save for the fact the THERE IS A LACK OF EVIDENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

IT IN NO WAY MEANS THAT THE ACTUAL ORDEAL, DID NOT TAKE PLACE! AND THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO ‘EVIDENCE’ MEANS IN NO WAY THAT IT IS ILLOGICAL TO BELIEVE THAT HE DID INDEED KILL THE BITCH. AS I’VE SAID, HE DID INDEED KILL HER. THE FACT THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS DONE AWAY WITH SO EASILY BY A ‘MAN’, ALSO TELLS ME THAT A BEING CAPABLE OF CREATING THE UNIVERSE COULD DO MUCH, MUCH MORE.

OR RATHER, IT TELLS ME THAT THE IDEA OF A DEITY SHOULD NOT BE DISMISSED ON THE SO-CALLED VIEW POINT THAT ‘THERE IS NO EVIDENCE’. AS I’VE SAID, OUR VERY BEING HERE IS REASON ENOUGH TO BELIEVE THAT A GOD POSSIBLY EXISTS. BUT FOR INANE REASONS YOU AND HE(HEX) BELIEVE IT IS ILLOGICAL. AND I’VE STATED SEVERAL TIMES THE ‘WHY(S)’ ON WHY THAT IS COMPLETE IDIOCY.

Why this is so inexplicable for the 2 of you is completely beyond my realm of knowing. And I no longer care to make it clear to you 2.

Theory is not the same as evidence. Seriously, you bitch about my inability to read, and then come up with this garbage? For a "babbling, fuckin drunk," I seem to have a better grasp of the situation than you. That said, you still need to explain why "scientific evidence is just a lot of conjectures."

Seriously, now I’m not going to bitch about your inability to read, because it is obvious to everyone that you can’t read. And seriously, now I’m calling you a bitch! First of fuckin all, you quoted me out of context, you ignorant piece of shit. What I believe I said was:

“No man has ever gone to a Neutron Star and analyzed its make-up. Not to my knowledge anyway. Is it illogical to believe that Neutron Stars aren’t the way scientists say they are?

All the so-called ‘Scientific Evidence’ to backup SUCH CLAIMS are mere conjectures. Conjectures are things, I believe, he implied were inadmissible. Implicated that they aren’t very good reasons to believe in anything, and are retarded at that…

You then replied:

1. Scientific evidence is just a lot of conjectures? Do tell.

To which I replied:

I needn’t explain anything, theories are conjecture by definition. You not knowing such things prove you to be void of being capable of discussion on anything we’ve talked about. Have you ever heard of a ‘hypothesis’?

You then replied again, having missed the purpose of that message: Theory is not the same as evidence. Seriously, you bitch about…

Now if you’re gonna fuckin quote me bitch, don’t misFUCKINquote me. You were wrong, I tried to subtlety stress that fact to you, and this is another perfect example to back my accusation, YOU CAN’T READ! You want to get all indignant, I can do that too, it’s nothing really. So that is therefore, proof indicating that YOU DO NOT HAVE A BETTER GRASP OF THE SITUATION THAN ME.!

You couldn’t even fuckin notice that I was not saying ‘ALL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE ARE CONJECTURES’. And that I was really saying, ‘ALL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE ON NEUTRON STARS, ARE MERE CONJECTURES’. You couldn’t see that even though I made it as palpable as possible, therefore, you’re either stupid and/or you can’t read. Now, I’ve proven time and time again to have basis’s for my accusations and arguments, you have none. Case & Point!

You seem to have forgotten that you edited your claim to state "atoms or subatomic particles" (to paraphrase). That was not your original claim.

Thanx Ashes, this is more proof of my accusation that you’re a lying sack of shit. And furthermore, a chance to prove once again that you’re not as smart as you think you are, in fact you’re stupid. I’m not the one who made the claim that, ‘Neutron Stars aren’t composed of MATTER’. Now am I? That little number, came from you, the claim that ‘Neutron Stars aren’t composed of matter’. And that is complete bullshit.

Now furthermore, on you BS claim that I, ‘edited my claim, atom or subatomic particles’ is complete Grade A(Ashes) BS! Here’s the proof, oh and I’m going to add that this is more proof that again you’re a liar.

Now bitch, I believe I indicated that all things weren’t made up of atoms when in that thread I said,“…And that everything is made of atoms. But only very recently in history (I don't mean yesterday) we've come to find out that this is not true. That electrons, protons, and neutrons ARE MADE UP OF SMALLER THINGS. QUARKS.” (http://www.totse.com/bbs/Forum15/HTML/002405.html)

Secondly, that claim (that is, "everything is made up of atoms and/or the subatomic parts that make them up")...

Secondly, as I’ve already pointed out, I added quarks to what I said. PRIOR to you and your bitch, Hex, began to make false claims. I also said that everything is made of ENERGY, before you and your boyfriend began your(plural) false-string of posts. Therefore, you and he were/are wrong about the matter.

And, photons are energy, as I’ve previously pointed out. Proven was again that you can’t read and/or you’re stupid, that you’re a liar, and you don’t know what you’re talking about a lot of the times you choose to reply to something.

Now lets see, photon-

Main Entry: pho·ton

Pronunciation: 'fO-"tän

Function: noun

Etymology: phot- + [2]-on

Date: 1916

1 : a unit of intensity of light at the retina equal to the illumination received per square millimeter of a pupillary area from a surface having a brightness of one candle per square meter

2 : a quantum of electromagnetic radiation

You’re a person who thought he knew more than someone (Me) when it comes to physics. Maybe because of the fact that I admitted that I think physics is completely boring and I hate studying it. However, I’ve proven many, many times that I know more than you on the matter, so you need not revert to that issue, because it’s simply not in your favor.

You proved such, when you made the stupid ass comment about ‘antimatter’. Which, as far as I was taught, is MATTER!, composed of Antiparticles, which BTW are SUBATOMIC! Opening up this discussion, as I’ve said, is not in favor of you.

You’re ignorant, which I’ve pointed out, and which I’ve proven time and time again. You simply lack intelligence, face the fact. I knew the whole time that you weren’t that smart, but I had hope for you; I thought you possessed the ability to learn. Keep proving otherwise, because either way I win.

That is, if you choose to learn, you’re admitting at least to yourself that you didn’t know. Which makes me right. If you choose not to learn, it doesn’t make you look good at all, and again proves that I’m right.

Now again, as far as I’ve been taught, neutrinos are PARTICLES. So by definition, they do indeed have mass. They are said to be nearly massless. So again, this proves me right and you wrong. And gravitons are hypothetical things, though still they are said to have MASS, therefore being of MATTER. Which again needless to say, proves me right, and you wrong.

(Regardless to whether or not you play your little word game, and decide to say something along the lines of, ‘it proves what you said to be correct, not that YOU’re right’. It changes nothing.)

Now, need I discuss muons and taus, or whatever the hell they’re called? Oh shit, that’s right, I already did. So moving on, by your own admission I’m right, you stated, “…Several different SUBATOMIC particles…” therefore, you need to shut the hell up about it, or if you choose to further the discussion admit what is obvious, YOU’RE WRONG!

:You’rewronggetoveritit’snot

likeyou’veneverbeenwrongb4|

ifyouweren’taliarthenyouwouldn’t

havethisproblem|seekhelpbecause

you’reahabitchualliar|hehei’mfunny:

Ode to Ashes-edit:fucked up link-messed up not meant now. Paragraphs too big. quotes too long, fixed who said what. Distinguish:

[This message has been edited by Metalligod (edited 05-12-2004).]

Metalligod

2004-05-12, 03:26

-To EVERYONE. If you're going to make accusations and/or claims back them up with proof. Don't just blurt BS falsehoods and expect to be looked upon as intelligent. Every time I make a claim, I'm urged to 'back it up'. These discussions would be much more productive and civilized if I weren't the only who does this.

Now it's quite apparent that many, many times you people don't agree with what I say. So what, disagree by all means, that is your prerogative. But don't begin a lame string of demeaning posts and expect me to take it, especially when your claims are false. By the same token, I won't expect such from you.

-This is my final stride towards civility with you, Hex. I'll state AGAIN the reasons why I feel that your logic isn't very logical at all. And Ashes, for you, I’ll restate why both of our analogies are equal.

*First off, both of our analogies have the very same message. Which is, A lack of evidence, is good reason to dismiss any and every idea in every situation.-Which is completely untrue, and unwise.

*As I've pointed out, even with us HUMANS, situations could occur in which no evidence is left. Or no evidence that we humans, at this time are capable of finding. Which is equivalent.

*Therefore, it is extremely unreasonable to treat every situation the same. Since we already know that, the messages in the analogies are severely flawed.

*Second, you(plural) believe that it is reasonable to equate two vastly different situations. One has a creature who is physically bound with physically bound abilities. The other, a being with diviner capabilities whom is not physically bound. Now it is already well known that we can’t always be 100% confirmatory about situations in which, we ordinary creatures are fixed.

So for what reasons do you presume that it is in any way logical to ascertain so ‘matter of factly’ that since there is no evidence to support the idea of a god, that there actually isn’t one.

*Conversely, can you show any evidence that the idea that a god exists, is totally dismissible? Now, mind you that a lack of evidence on one end, means only that there is a lack of evidence to prove that ‘it’ occurred.

As we know from murder cases, a lack of evidence does not prove that something did not occur. So what I’m asking is, can you show proof/evidence/reason(s) that it is completely illogical to believe in the possibility of an existing god? Either of you?

As I’ve shown before, my logic, as you call it Ashes. Holds true, it is not ill-conceived, and it is not prone to credulous beliefs. As I thought I’d proved to you, when you approached me with the ‘Invisible Dragon’ bull. My logic is built on being logical deciphering, *there is no logical reason that an invisible dragon would exist.

*There is no possibility; based on the story, that someone would know it was a dragon. *There was no possible way for them to know it was in the garage, *there was no logical reason that it would be in the garage.

Now can you see how it is all based on logic, and not the stupid idea that every situation should be evaluated with the same credentials(as Hex's and I's analogies have stated)? Had the creature been something like…an alien, then I’d get up, weapon ready, and investigate the situation.

Why? Because there is a logical reason for aliens to exist, there are logical reasons for them to be in my garage, there would be logical reasons for the description of them.

However, I wouldn’t truly believe it, not for a second would I be totally convinced that the beings in my garage are actually aliens. But I would think the informants saw something. I’d think whatever it is it scared the kids, and their fear caused them to morph the description of what they’d seen.

And also, many factors go into situations like this, I wouldn’t investigate the situation if the informants were of a certain age. Simply because people of a certain age would react differently to seeing certain things. And I’d know if they were playing a joke on me, I’d also know they were lying.

If they said something that was completely bogus, for instance if the creature were an alien like the ones from the movie ‘Alien’. I wouldn’t lift a finger. If the creature were a vampire, I’d prepare to beat someone's ass, because there are weirdoes that think they’re vamps. It varies, my point is I wouldn’t assess every situation the same.

*Our analogies send the message that it is ok to dismiss ‘logical reasoning’. By this I mean exactly what I did with the situation about the dragon, it is wise for one to assess the degree of logic in what they’re hearing. I’d ignore it if I heard a story about how Freddy Kreuger killed someones friend or family member, etc.

There is no logical reason for Freddy to exist, and I also don’t believe in the idea of forces that are ‘good or evil’. Freddy Kreuger whom attacks mainly in dreams and cannot die by any means would have no vulnerability. I would dismiss such a claim. He would be unstoppable and therefore it would be needless to do anything anyway, if indeed the bull where true.

If someone told me a tale of a ghost I would be skeptical, however, I wouldn’t dismiss the idea that ghosts exist. For I truly hope they do, because ghost are just spirits, and if the fact is that when we die, we’re no more, then my reason is shattered altogether. I would not dismiss the idea of ghosts based on a lack of evidence for there existence. They are by definition spirits, not physical matter, so what evidence is there to leave?

If someone told me Michael Jackson broke into their home and moonwalked up their stairs, then I’d dismiss that claim. It’s physically impossible and it’s illogical.

*-Don't make any posts about the words factly or I's, it'll be a complete waste of time.

Metalligod, out.

SARDONICPILLOW

2004-05-12, 03:40

what if the stairs had a board or something laid upon them that provided a flat surface for him to moonwalk up?

ashesofzen

2004-05-12, 04:16

Metalligod:

Ok, now how could a being exist, that influences the world around us, but leaves no evidence? Well, as I’ve said before, if a god exists then they have preternatural abilities.

Please define what you mean by "preternatural abilities" and then prove that if a god exists, it has them.

So since they have these abilities they could come here in the guise of who/what ever they want to be.

And that would be leaving evidence.

Which means that they could come and go as they wish, and leave no evidence that they, in all their glory, truly exists. See how simple it is?

If they come in some guise (http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=guise), there is evidence.

Why/how are they logically inconsistent, and why are those the only two choices?

1. There is no evidence.

2. There are limitless possibilities.

3. If one accepts the existence of an entity, without any evidence, one is saying that evidence is unnecessary.

4. Name a rule of logic that, without any evidence, allows for the ability to decide what does and does not exist.

See this is why I call you stupid... ...THERE IS A LACK OF EVIDENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is no evidence that you've killed thirty people. Shall we assume that you have? Give me your address, so we can call the authorities down on you for the crimes that we cannot, by your thoughts, prove or disprove. After all, I'd hate to feel like I did nothing to bring you to justice for crimes you may (or may not) have committed. After all, as you said, "a lack of evidence proves nothing save for the fact the (sic) THERE IS A LACK OF EVIDENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

IT IN NO WAY... ...KILL THE BITCH.

(see above)

AS I’VE SAID, HE DID INDEED KILL HER. THE FACT THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS DONE AWAY WITH SO EASILY BY A ‘MAN’,

Have you considered the extreme difficulty involved in doing away with all of the evidence?

ALSO TELLS ME... ‘...THERE IS NO EVIDENCE’.

Again, do you believe in elves that have the ability to remove the evidence of their existence after the fact?

AS I’VE SAID, OUR VERY BEING HERE IS REASON ENOUGH TO BELIEVE THAT A GOD POSSIBLY EXISTS. BUT FOR INANE REASONS YOU AND HE(HEX) BELIEVE IT IS ILLOGICAL. AND I’VE STATED SEVERAL TIMES THE ‘WHY(S)’ ON WHY THAT IS COMPLETE IDIOCY.

A god capable of illogical feats is illogical. So, then, to speak of a being outside of logic in the context of logic is meaningless. Are you claiming that god is capable of illogical feats, or are you claiming that there is a logical method that the god can use to eliminate the evidence that he (if logically bound) would leave?

Seriously, now I’m not going to bitch about your inability to read... ...Case & Point!

Now, you've said that "ALL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE ON NEUTRON STARS ARE MERE CONJECTURES." Many of these "conjectures" are also used as evidence for other theories. Are you saying that these theories are flawed, as well?

Also, if the evidence used for neutron stars is flawed, the evidence that stands behind that evidence must also be flawed (in whole, or in part). So, anything based on this secondary evidence is also flawed (in whole, or in part).

Finally, if you're going to advance such a claim, start stating where the evidence is wrong.

If you make a statement such as the earlier (to paraphrase) "no one has ever gone to a neutron star and analyzed its make-up," I'll again remind you that no one has ever gone to the sun, no one has ever gone to Mars, no one has ever gone to jupiter, and so forth. As a matter of fact, no one has ever gone to the center of the earth. You need to seriously redefine this a bit, I think.

edit: 'rid of the matter mess.

[This message has been edited by ashesofzen (edited 05-12-2004).]

Hexadecimal

2004-05-12, 06:08

"-This is my final stride towards civility with you, Hex. I'll state AGAIN the reasons why I feel that your logic isn't very logical at all. And Ashes, for you, I?ll restate why both of our analogies are equal."

Okay, thanks for atleast providing the motive behind your reasoning. When trying to figure out whether something is correct or not, you just can't have the steps, you need the motive and thoughts put into each step, which I admit I did not supply for my analogy until later on.

"*First off, both of our analogies have the very same message. Which is, A lack of evidence, is good reason to dismiss any and every idea in every situation.-Which is completely untrue, and unwise."

I agree that that would be wrong. It isn't saying to dismiss ideas due to lack of evidence, it's saying to be skeptical of things without evidence. There's a difference between declaring a view on current evidence or lack of it and then refusing to change views if evidence is introduced, and declaring a view which can change as evidence is introduced.

"*As I've pointed out, even with us HUMANS, situations could occur in which no evidence is left. Or no evidence that we humans, at this time are capable of finding. Which is equivalent."

I fail to see the importance that such an equivalency would create; one would have to presuppose that the situation did occur for evidence we aren't yet capable of finding to exist at all, resulting in circular reasoning with no conclusion on the matter.

"*Therefore, it is extremely unreasonable to treat every situation the same. Since we already know that, the messages in the analogies are severely flawed."

Yes, it is unreasonable to treat every situation the same, hence why I set a clear premise for the analogy to relate to, as it was only alike in one way: ignorance based on no evidence which allowed room for a faulty assumption. I'm not saying the person is automatically wrong in the belief ninjas/god raided/existed, simply that the assumption is illogical as it stands. Right/Wrong do not enter into the analogy, simply logical/illogical. If you attempt to apply the analogy outside of the set premise (which I think is where you get your disagreement with it), then of course it is going to fail as it doesn't attempt to relate anything else.

"*Second, you(plural) believe that it is reasonable to equate two vastly different situations. One has a creature who is physically bound with physically bound abilities. The other, a being with diviner capabilities whom is not physically bound. Now it is already well known that we can?t always be 100% confirmatory about situations in which, we ordinary creatures are fixed."

It's reasonable to relate them if the one crafting the analogy sets a premise, which I did, that limits the scope to an area in which the two are alike. The analogy was not concerned with the nature of the assumption, but the basis for it, that was made clear; the basis of both assumptions was absolutely nothing...they were both without evidence. That's all the analogy relates, nothing else.

"So for what reasons do you presume that it is in any way logical to ascertain so ?matter of factly? that since there is no evidence to support the idea of a god, that there actually isn?t one."

Well, experience for one creates expectations. Usually, when an idea comes along with not the slighest bit of evidence supporting it, it is false...that's just the reason though that I step from skepticism into the territory of disbelief though. What I'm trying to support here, and rightly so I think, is skepticism when evidence does not exist.

"*Conversely, can you show any evidence that the idea that a god exists, is totally dismissible? Now, mind you that a lack of evidence on one end, means only that there is a lack of evidence to prove that ?it? occurred."

I think the bolded section is what myself and Ashes have been saying for some time. We've been promoting skepticism...that is, not accepting it as true when the evidence faulters or simply doesn't exist, not complete disbelief, but the capacity to discern possible from probable.

"As we know from murder cases, a lack of evidence does not prove that something did not occur. So what I?m asking is, can you show proof/evidence/reason(s) that it is completely illogical to believe in the possibility of an existing god? Either of you?"

Under the given information that he murdered whomever, by using our good little friend 'A is proof of A', we need no other evidence as the attempted proof is the very beginning and very end of the proof. Then again, that's only the case in hypothetical situations. In life though, it is not a given that someone murdered another; evidence exists in the form of circumstantial evidence (aliby, motive, means, location, contradictions of story). Evidence will exist in one form or another if a life is taken, not always enough to get a solid conviction even when the person did do it, but evidence, circumstantial or physical exists. However, there's another aspect of law called 'reasonable doubt'. If there is not sufficient evidence, doubt is reasonable and the tried should walk free whether they did it or not. Sure, evidence has not been discovered to prove them guilty, but working with what is given and using logic to put the situation together could not firmly prove he did it.

"As I?ve shown before, my logic, as you call it Ashes. Holds true, it is not ill-conceived, and it is not prone to credulous beliefs. As I thought I?d proved to you, when you approached me with the ?Invisible Dragon? bull. My logic is built on being logical deciphering, *there is no logical reason that an invisible dragon would exist."

Yes there is; it would be the ultimate predator and a species capable of ruling without upsetting the proud creature called man. Essentially, we would never know it exists but it can still hunt us. Perfectly logical reason an invisible dragon would exist.

"*There is no possibility; based on the story, that someone would know it was a dragon. *There was no possible way for them to know it was in the garage, *there was no logical reason that it would be in the garage."

1)The dragon induced visions during the man's sleep telling him to profess its existence. 2)Garages reach higher temperatures than average during both winter and summer months; if the dragon indeed exists, I'm sure a firebreather would prefer a slightly warmer climate to the outside cold. By this reason, one can assume that since the dragon is invisible, it's perogative is to remain unseen, and would rather hide in a semi-warm garage undetected that barge into a warm house and be discovered immediately.

3) See 2.

"Now can you see how it is all based on logic, and not the stupid idea that every situation should be evaluated with the same credentials(as Hex's and I's analogies have stated)? Had the creature been something like?an alien, then I?d get up, weapon ready, and investigate the situation."

Every situation shouldp be treated with the same credentials. However, the types of evidence present result in having to use one of the two reasoning methods, resulting in different treatment, but the exact same credentials.

"Why? Because there is a logical reason for aliens to exist, there are logical reasons for them to be in my garage, there would be logical reasons for the description of them."

Same with the dragon.

"However, I wouldn?t truly believe it, not for a second would I be totally convinced that the beings in my garage are actually aliens. But I would think the informants saw something. I?d think whatever it is it scared the kids, and their fear caused them to morph the description of what they?d seen."

Ah, but these are visible aliens, not invisible ones that avoid detection. If one were to see a being in their garage, the proven, factually proven existence of that being, opens speculation as to what it is.

"If they said something that was completely bogus, for instance if the creature were an alien like the ones from the movie ?Alien?. I wouldn?t lift a finger. If the creature were a vampire, I?d prepare to beat someone's ass, because there are weirdoes that think they?re vamps. It varies, my point is I wouldn?t assess every situation the same."

Actually, you are assessing it the same. You are taking the verbiage, comparing it to your friend's likelihood to lie on that matter, and then determining its worth. Same process of assessment, but different conclusions due to different input. Well, if you mean your assessments aren't the same, you'd be correct in that way...but that's because you have a uniform process of assessment that gives varied results based on input of thousands of factors, with the most important being physical evidence to determine whether to outright accept or to be skeptical.

"*Our analogies send the message that it is ok to dismiss ?logical reasoning?. By this I mean exactly what I did with the situation about the dragon, it is wise for one to assess the degree of logic in what they?re hearing. I?d ignore it if I heard a story about how Freddy Kreuger killed someones friend or family member, etc."

It's not logical reasoning to assume something without evidence. It is logical reasoning to determine your level of skepticism based on previous experience, however. It is never okay to dismiss logical reasoning, else you find yourself going quite insane due to all the contradictions that arise, the mind can only bullshit itself into believing so many contradictions.

"There is no logical reason for Freddy to exist, and I also don?t believe in the idea of forces that are ?good or evil?. Freddy Kreuger whom attacks mainly in dreams and cannot die by any means would have no vulnerability. I would dismiss such a claim. He would be unstoppable and therefore it would be needless to do anything anyway, if indeed the bull where true."

It contradicts itself, and is illogical; why cannot you see that the god concept is illogical in just the same way?

"If someone told me a tale of a ghost I would be skeptical, however, I wouldn?t dismiss the idea that ghosts exist. For I truly hope they do, because ghost are just spirits, and if the fact is that when we die, we?re no more, then my reason is shattered altogether. I would not dismiss the idea of ghosts based on a lack of evidence for there existence. They are by definition spirits, not physical matter, so what evidence is there to leave?"

Skepticism is what the lack of evidence should imply; and based on experience with certain people and situations, from there one can determine the level of skepticism to put into it without breaking any of the rules of logical thinking. So I agree with you for the most part.

"If someone told me Michael Jackson broke into their home and moonwalked up their stairs, then I?d dismiss that claim. It?s physically impossible and it?s illogical."

Haha, physically impossible my ass. Moonwalking on stairs is extremely difficult, but it is possible. Illogical, yes, as there's no evidence for it, and contradictory as his location is almost always accounted for, nor does anything in his past suggest that he breaks into homes, so I agree with ya here.

"*-Don't make any posts about the words factly or I's, it'll be a complete waste of time."

I agree on this as well, hehe.

Drahcir

2004-05-12, 10:24

I've read these two articles once, that may prove that (a) god exists. http://www.snopes.com/luck/choir.htm http://www.snopes.com/religion/bolt.htm

Kw0nLiE

2004-05-12, 20:11

fuck,metalligod and ashes,your bloody posts are to damn big and nobody wants 2 read em,so shut up.

Metalligod

2004-05-12, 20:16

quote:Originally posted by SARDONICPILLOW:

what if the stairs had a board or something laid upon them that provided a flat surface for him to moonwalk up?

*Then gravity would prevent him from doing such a thing.

*And anyway, I considered such a thing. However, that would then mean that he did not moonwalk up the stairs. It would mean that he'd moonwalked on boards that were on the stairs.

And also, moonwalking allows only directional movements, that are sideways(back and forth), and turning. It would not make him move in the 'up' direction.

SARDONICPILLOW

2004-05-12, 20:58

you can do it on a slight slope.

33% God

2004-05-12, 21:38

I'm only 33%.....

Metalligod

2004-05-13, 00:24

Please define what you mean by "preternatural abilities" and then prove that if a god exists, it has them.

First of all, you asking such a question is contradictory to what you think of your intelligence. A god, by definition has preternatural capabilities. And you demand that I prove a god has them? It’s truly pathetic.

‘god’-

2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality

Preternatural-

Main Entry: pre·ter·nat·u·ral

Pronunciation: "prE-t&r-'na-ch&-r&l, -'nach-r&l

Function: adjective

Etymology: Medieval Latin praeternaturalis, from Latin praeter naturam beyond nature

Date: 1580

1 : existing outside of nature

2 : exceeding what is natural or regular : EXTRAORDINARY <wits trained to preternatural acuteness by the debates —G. L. Dickinson>

3 : inexplicable by ordinary means; especially : PSYCHIC

Now, what I meant by ‘preternatural abilities’ is that, the being can do things that regular beings (us) can’t. As if by magic, meaning that they could control things in nature, thus being capable of making things in nature, and also being able to manipulate things in nature as they see fit.

Why you needed me to define ‘preternatural’ is completely beyond me. It’s the same thing as: supernatural, mystical, paranormal, ethereal, etc. I have an ‘Anne Rice Complex’, I read a lot of her books and therefore know this word, and hear it a lot. I really hope the reason you asked for interpretation of this word was for the reason that you’ve never heard it. But then again, it’s not hard at all to go to the dictionary, as you do so often.

And that would be leaving evidence.

Ok, that’s my fuckin point. You two bastards bitch about, ‘there is no evidence, wy wy wy’, like babies. I swear to fuckin God(just a phrase) I asked the two of you the question, ‘how do you know that He/it doesn’t/didn’t leave any evidence’. And it’s not really evidence if no one knows who they truly are. For all we know, we’ve just seen another person, rock, etc. If they aren’t coming in their own guise, then it’s not truly evidence.

So therefore, had they come in any form other than their true form, or a form in which they reveal themselves, then it’s not truly evidence. And since they are able to do this, they could come and go, leaving no evidence that they were there/here. Regardless to what people say; even if they’d had a conversation with someone and revealed whom they were.

This person goes and tells everyone that they’ve spoken to God/a god. No one would believe them; because…THERE IS A LACK OF EVIDENCE. Telling someone you saw or spoke to someone who claimed to be a god/God is not evidence in the eyes of man. Eyewitnesses claims are dismissed daily, because there’s no other PROOF, to backup what they say. Case & Point: The ‘Greensboro Murders’.

So like I said, a lack of evidence is NOT, a plausible reason to dismiss any and every idea. Especially when speaking on issues, in which deities are involved.

If they come in some guise, there is evidence.

Hopefully by this point, you’ll see how untrue this claim is, for the reason that you state it as a ‘definite’.

1. There is no evidence.

2. There are limitless possibilities.

3. If one accepts the existence of an entity, without any evidence, one is saying that evidence is unnecessary.

4. Name a rule of logic that, without any evidence, allows for the ability to decide what does and does not exist.

1. What the Fuck are you talking about? That shit makes no sense.

2. How are there limitless possibilities in ‘logic’? Do you even know what the hell you’re responding to?

3. Now you’re really showing your ignorance. That has nothing to do with what you’re supposed to be responding to, A. And B, What you’re saying is false. I believe I said, ‘Our being here is evidence enough to support the idea of a deity’. Why you think it’s an absolute fact that we came from nowhere is completely illogical, narrow-minded, inane, unintelligent, idiotic, unwise, it’s also superfluously and spuriously pious.

–As I’ve said before, if you decide to make a claim, do as I’m urged to do, ‘back it up’. Believe me, I could sure as hell back up everything I’ve just said about you.

4. I didn’t know there existed a thing called ‘rule of logic’. I honestly didn’t know there were rules to ‘thinking’. I didn’t know that people had to follow rules when thinking. So Ashes, could you plz teach me these rules? I’ve never even imagined such a thing existed, for the simple fact that I believe it is completely ludicrous.

-BTW, this proves in many ways that you can’t read, or well, comprehend what you read. This has nothing to do with what you’re responding to. And quite honestly, I can’t recall a time when I insisted, said, or implied that I believe in anything that does not exist.

As the ‘Queer Cum-Guzzler’ Knowlie, so beautifully pointed out, I’m not Christian. I’d also like to know of a time when I determined that something existed without proof that it exists. So could you plz, plz, plz, point that out? Oh and for some reason, neutrinos come to mind.

There is no evidence that you've killed thirty people. Shall we assume that you have?

If that’s what you want to do. However, no, because I’ve never made such a claim, number 1. And 2, there is/are no LOGICAL reason(s) to assume such. However there are logical reasons to believe that a deity, as I’ve already pointed out. And one of these reasons, I’ve presented in the form of a question, that you’ve yet to answer.

Give me your address, so we can call the authorities down on you for the crimes that we cannot, by your thoughts, prove or disprove.

What The Fuck!!!??? What the hell… what are you thinking? By my thoughts??? Again WTF? What does this have to do with anything? If you can’t own your own see that this, 1, has no relevance, and 2, it’s inequitable to anything, then you’re hopeless.

After all, I'd hate to feel like I did nothing to bring you to justice for crimes you may (or may not) have committed. After all, as you said, "a lack of evidence proves nothing save for the fact the (sic) THERE IS A LACK OF EVIDENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Again, what the hell does this have to do with anything? First of all, your lame attempt to use my analogy against me was, as I’ve pointed out, lame, as well as: stupid, illogical, unwise, and terribly devout to immorality.

It is in no way, conscionable nor is it equitable. There is no LOGICAL reason to believe that I’ve done anything. There is LOGICAL reason to believe that a deity could’ve put us here(indirectly). There is no LOGICAL reason to bring up my thoughts, nor are there any known means of reading my thoughts(none that I know of). With that said, what the hell did you mean by saying, “…by your thoughts…” The shit makes no sense.

However, there are LOGICAL reasons for believing that a deity could exist. We don’t know our origin, and we know of nothing, that says a deity could NOT exist. Or do we, Ashes? Do you KNOW of any EVIDENCE that says, ‘There is no way that a deity could exist’? Or ‘Nor are there any LOGICAL reasons, to believe that there could be a deity’?

(see above)

Back to this, are ye? Wow, it’s amazing! How you lamely avoid questions that you fear to answer or can’t answer.

As I’ve said, in my scenario, he killed the bitch. However, in your scenario, I did NOT kill anyone, nor was there ever any LOGICAL reason(s) to believe that I killed anyone. You first, don’t know me, 2nd, you have no bodies nor have you: names, locations, motive(s), any KNOWN victims, explanations of how the victims were killed, therefore, no basis for your accusation/reasoning.

3RD, you’ve never seen me before; therefore, you can’t even begin to honestly say that you’ve seen me anywhere. 4th, you raise accusations on me, accusations to murders. Murders, which, you did NOT bare, witness to. There are just accusations that have no LOGICAL basis for their claims. However there is a LOGICAL basis for the idea of a deity.

You say ‘Natural Processes’ made us. Whose processes, it’s a process, but isn’t there reason to believe someone/something may have started these ‘processes’? Aren’t there LOGICAL reasons to believe that someone may have begun these processes? Another word for ‘Natural’ is ‘Expected’, isn’t there reason to believe that some being could have ‘expected’, nature to become?

There are no REASONS to believe in your murder accusations, but there are reason(s) to believe that a deity made the universe. Therefore, there’s a BASIS for such an argument. No ways to disprove such an argument. However, there are far, far too many ways to disprove your arguments. For instance, again, where the hell are the bodies?

That’s not the case with your argument, as I’ve pointed out, your argument has NO BASIS. You have no reasons for your accusations, but there are REASONS to support the idea of a deity. Can you now see the difference? If not, ONE HAS A BASIS, THE OTHER DOESN’T(YOURS). One has REASONS, the other DOES NOT HAVE REASONS.

BTW, what are these ‘Natural Processes’ of which, you speak?

Have you considered the extreme difficulty involved in doing away with all of the evidence?

What the hell is your point? What relevance does this question have? What makes you think it is hard to get rid of the evidence? As I recall, I never specified how he killed her, because, that information is immeasurably irrelevant. It has nothing to do with the point. But sense you brought it up, what relevance does it have? How does how he killed her have anything to do with the message, topic, or discussion?

ABTW-When I thought this thing up, I was going to say the murder weapon was poison. But, still I refuse to specify which one, until you come with your BS response to this.

Again, do you believe in elves that have the ability to remove the evidence of their existence after the fact?

No, there are no logical reasons for elves to exist. Santa Clause does not exist, therefore, nor do they. This goes back to what I said about superstitious beliefs. Fear and/or ignorance, causes man, to hype stories that have some truths in them.

Santa Clause was a living being, however, he had no magical powers (magic does not exist or rather I don’t believe in it), nor was he this enormous, jolly dude. He did bring gift to the poor, but he did not have flying Reindeer, he was just rich.

Magic is not real, so elves are not real. Do you believe that you should stop asking stupid ass questions? If I haven’t proven by now that my logic has no faults, then you’re hopeless. I’ve proven time and time again that my logic is not prone to gullibility, if it’s not apparent to you, then just give up.

Because I simply refuge to be scrutinized with such INANE questions, your frivolous questions fill me with pure melancholia. Come better, you’ll have to be more clever, cause that shit aint working on me.

A god capable of illogical feats is illogical.

Why?

So, then, to speak of a being outside of logic in the context of logic is meaningless.

What makes you think that the being is outside of logic? What makes it outside of logic?

Are you claiming that god is capable of illogical feats, or are you claiming that there is a logical method that the god can use to eliminate the evidence that he (if logically bound) would leave?

First of all I never claimed anything, except pure facts. Now this question is unclear, are you speaking of God, or a god? You need to be more clear, if you want me to answer a question. First you say ‘god’ like you’re talking about one person, God. You then revert to speaking in a plural sense, when you continued in the sentence that followed. By the phrase ‘plural sense’, I meant speaking of the ‘Idol Gods’.

Now, you've said that "ALL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE ON NEUTRON STARS ARE MERE CONJECTURES." Many of these "conjectures" are also used as evidence for other theories. Are you saying that these theories are flawed, as well?[/b]

First of all, this is another BullShit attempt to make yourself right, and make me wrong. It’s pathetic, what you said was wrong. It left unbiased people with the impression that you can’t read and/or you can’t comprehend what you read. It also made you appear to be a vindictive person and also, a deceitful person. There’s no escaping it, so stop trying.

Now, plz do specify what conjectures about the Neutron Star, that scientist also use for evidence on other theories. Oh and BTW, THEORIES ARE POSSIBLY FALSE. Now you’re doing it again, you’re doing that deceitful thing you do, in changing your argument. Your beginning argument on this issue was: [I]“Theory is not the same as evidence. Seriously, you bitch about…”

It is now changed, suddenly, to, whether or not I said the ‘conjectures’ are flawed. You’re full of shit, and I’ve proved you’re a liar amongst many other things, one of them being that I’m intellectually superior to you. And it seems as though your boyfriend has decided to shut the hell up because he knows he’s wrong, as well as you. (And in case you’re wondering who I’m talking about, it’s you, Hex!)

You change of points was/is obvious and complete BS, because you know damned good and well that I’ve never said those conjectures were flawed, you ignorant piece of shit.

Yeah, this brings me to my second point. When the fuck did I say that any theory was flawed? I fuckin dare you to point out any time in this whole fuckin thread that I’ve stated a theory was false. Like I said, deceitful, liar, vindictive, all claims I make, are claims that I could prove true. People don’t like me on this site for that reason and that reason alone. Don’t fuckin make falsified claims, and I won’t call you on it.

Also, if the evidence used for neutron stars is flawed, the evidence that stands behind that evidence must also be flawed (in whole, or in part). So, anything based on this secondary evidence is also flawed (in whole, or in part).

Like I said, ‘Babbling Drunk!’ You are the epitome of ignorance(No, this does not mean ignorance could be replaced with word Ashes.) Dumbass!

So I guess when you found out that the symbol ‘heart’ is used in place of love, you took the joke of the phrase, ‘I ‘Heart’ you’ literally? Imbecile! Now I’d love/dare/pay any one of your ever so protective friends to come and argue anything I’ve said about you. And prove anything I’ve said false.

Finally, if you're going to advance such a claim, start stating where the evidence is wrong.

Plz, state when I CLAIMED that the ‘evidence’ is wrong. Can you do that? Is that possible?—Plz don’t avoid any of the questions in this post. Answer then if/when you decide to respond, plz do so.

If you make a statement such as the earlier (to paraphrase) "no one has ever gone to a neutron star and analyzed its make-up," I'll again remind you that no one has ever gone to the sun, no one has ever gone to Mars, no one has ever gone to jupiter, and so forth. As a matter of fact, no one has ever gone to the center of the earth. You need to seriously redefine this a bit, I think.

First, what the hell would be the point? Second, do you realize everything that I’ve said about you (aside from the gay stuff), is completely true? Ya know, the idiot, stupid, retarded, dumbass, can’t read and/or comprehend what you read, etc comments are all true? And third, why don’t you go back and re-read what you quoted above, AND STOP FUCKIN MISQUOTING ME BITCH!!!!

To Knowlie: I’ll decline the offer, I don’t fuck wit HIV Pos, bitches like you. Have a Fucked up life, and a Slow Painful Death.

Metalligod’s Vow: If anyone could rebut anything I’ve said, in this post.

I swear to God/the gods/graves/my life, fuck it, I’ll swear on anything, I will obliterate my Totse registration, and never ever re-register. I won’t make another post, I won’t even consider such a thing, I swear I’ll relinquish every thing that is Totse, in my memory. Prove me wrong, do it, I’ll accept all comers, arms open, I dare any of you to refute my words. I’m begging you to, DO IT.

To Misquote ‘The Greats’-

“...Information’s all I crave…

Not even knowledge will I save…

But I'll take my time anywhere

Free to speak my mind anywhere

And I'll redefine anywhere…

...And the earth becomes my throne

I adapt to the unknown

Under Totse’s stars I've grown…

…If you prove this man, a lie

I’ll be stripped of all my pride

And they’ll all be satisfied

Metalligod will die!!!!!!!!”

Hexadecimal

2004-05-13, 00:54

If you'd fucking read you'd know I haven't quited down. Nice way to argue though...you know, attacking the presenter rather than the argument. You'd get far in debates.

Rust

2004-05-13, 01:47

quote:If that’s what you want to do. However, no, because I’ve never made such a claim, number 1. And 2, there is/are no LOGICAL reason(s) to assume such.

Why not? Why don't 'logical reasons' exist? Because their is no proof? That's the whole freaking point.

quote:

However there are logical reasons to believe that a deity, as I’ve already pointed out.

"to believe that a deity" doesn't make sense. I'll assume you mean, "To believe that a deity exists". If you didn't mean that, then ignore this part:

What reasons are there to believe that a deity exists? Evidence? What evidence do you have to support your claim?

----

You keep missing the point these guys have been trying to hammer into your brain for days. If God exists and has not left any evidence, then there is no reason or imperative to believe that he does exist. He may exist, but you do not have to believe so since no evidence or proof to back the claim have been presented.

Just as I don't have to believe that you have murdered 33 people since there is no evidence to support that claim. You may have killed 33 people, but I have no reason to believe that until I am presented evidence to support that.

P.S.

I only replied in the hope that you leave Totse and never come back. You'd be doing all of us a favor.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 05-13-2004).]

Hexadecimal

2004-05-13, 05:35

"I only replied in the hope that you leave Totse and never come back. You'd be doing all of us a favor."

The level of immaturity, ignorance, and agressive behavior he displays quite righly entertains me. Nothing like laughing at someone making a consistent ass of themself. Speaking of making an ass out of yourself, today I sang a horrible rendition of "Happy Birthday" for a friend in front of about 600 people...good times, seeing how red they got.

redzed

2004-05-13, 12:40

quote:Originally posted by 4nal Discharg3:

Am I wrong? Prove it..

(remember I asked the question, don't ask me to prove he doesn't, proving negatives is infinently harder)

God -- whoever/whatever one serves, certainly does exist. Your god may be your ego, or your ride, or money, drugs, sex, rock and roll.... yourself, or your Self.

"Everybody serves somebody"

(Dylan?)

Rust

2004-05-13, 23:36

quote:The level of immaturity, ignorance, and agressive behavior he displays quite righly entertains me. Nothing like laughing at someone making a consistent ass of themself.

It was entertaining for me at first, but then I realized he actually believes all that stuff, and that shit is depressing.

quote:Speaking of making an ass out of yourself, today I sang a horrible rendition of "Happy Birthday" for a friend in front of about 600 people...good times, seeing how red they got

I would have killed you... literally. http://www.totse.com/bbs/redface.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/redface.gif)

Ch33seM4n

2004-05-13, 23:53

quote:Originally posted by 4nal Discharg3:

god is nothing more than a bedtime story youd tell your children to behave. "get out of bed and the boogie man will get you".. "sin and youll go to hell" ... he was simply made up by someone somewhere to keep us under control. people without faith are much much more violent than people blinded by religon.

Metalligod

2004-05-14, 03:15

Okay, thanks for atleast providing the motive behind your reasoning. When trying to figure out whether something is correct or not, you just can't have the steps, you need the motive and thoughts put into each step, which I admit I did not supply for my analogy until later on.

Dude, I'm going to kill you if I meet you...jerk.

Just kidding, but why didn't you say that in the first place? You knew, or at least I hope you did, that I was only saying that your logic didn't make sense, simply because you're saying it is ok dismiss such a complex idea, or ideas like it. Based on the fact that there is a lack of 'physical evidence'.

I say 'physical beccause, after all you did indeed say:

NO EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THE CLAIM AND THAT THE CLAIM IS THEREFOR ILLOGICAL TO ASSUME PROVIDED THE LACK OF EVIDENCE.

I tried desperately, to get you to see that, such a complex situation should NOT be judged in that manner, because that is simply ILLOGICAL and UNWISE.

I agree that that would be wrong.

See I'm going to kill you again! JK.

It isn't saying to dismiss ideas due to lack of evidence, it's saying to be skeptical of things without evidence.

It sure as hell seemed as though.

There's a difference between declaring a view on current evidence or lack of it and then refusing to change views if evidence is introduced, and declaring a view which can change as evidence is introduced.

Well see that's just the thing. This issue involves things of a spiritual nature. A world, man has yet to LOGICALLY explain. It's a world that we cannot be 100% positive that it even exists. But still, I believe that is no reason to doubt that it exists. What do you think, do you believe that since we can't prove that 'death is not the end', that we shouldn't believe that?

I believe there is a very strong posibility that it does, and for that same reason, I believe it is possible that a god exists.

We (most of us, I think.) believe that death is not the END. At least not for everybody. So our spirits go on living, and cannot be contained by things of the physical world. Therefore we can't prove nor disprove the existance of such a thing.

Nor can we attain evidence that would way on either side of the discussion. By that I mean, there's no evidence in favor that it does exist nor is there any evidence that it doesn't.

I fail to see the importance that such an equivalency would create; one would have to presuppose that the situation did occur for evidence we aren't yet capable of finding to exist at all, resulting in circular reasoning with no conclusion on the matter.

You fail to see, because you fail to open your eyes. One would NOT have to 'presuppose' anything. Because to do so, would be vasty stupid. You need to open your mind and be the intellectual you think you are.

Why 'presuppose' anything? When I've stated already that, THERE HAS BEEN A MURDER?! Everyone one knows that the bitch got offed. But the delimma is, finding out who did it.

There's no evidence in favor of the idea that Jeremy killed her. But, as I've already said, he did kill her. A LACK OF EVIDENCE MEANS IN NO WAY THAT SOMETHING DID NOT HAPPEN.

And it wounds me, that you can't see why that's relevent to your idea that, 'there's no reason to believe in something if there's a LACK OF EVIDENCE'. As I've tried painfully, to get you to 'see'. (Open your eyes!)

Yes, it is unreasonable to treat every situation the same...

Yeah, but you fail to see that your premise was, 'there's no reason to believe in something, if there's a lack of evidence'. That is absurt, to the extremest degree. And, as I've said, you believe it to be completely logical to dismiss something based on the idea that there's a lack of evidence. Yes I said 'idea'.

You also believe it is intelligent to apply such faulty logic to the vastly complex notions of the supernatural world. And that's plain STUPID.

Which is exactly what you did. Ninjas:Godblahblahblah.

It's reasonable to relate them if the one crafting the analogy sets a premise...

Hopeless...it's simply hopelss...

"So for what reasons do you presume that it is in any way logical to ascertain so ?matter of factly? that since there is no evidence to support the idea of a god, that there actually isn?t one."

Well, experience for one creates expectations. Usually, when an idea comes along with not the slighest bit of evidence supporting it, it is false...

What freakin evidence do you want!? Do you want God/gods to come down and proclaim who they are? So the hell what if you do, we all do. And if there is a God/gods, then they're silently saying, 'So the hell what' as well, only to all of us.

I want to witness the unvieling of a deities existance. But it's just not going to happen, not anytime soon, anyway. But then again, that depends on your idea of 'soon'.

I think the bolded section is what myself and Ashes have been saying for some time. We've been promoting skepticism...that is, not accepting it as true when the evidence faulters or simply doesn't exist, not complete disbelief, but the capacity to discern possible from probable.

No the hell you have not. You've been proclaiming time and time again that it is illogical to believe in such a thing, with no 'HARD Evidence', whatever the hell that may be. I'd cut and paste some shit to prove as much, but I really don't feel like it, and couldn't careless if you denied it.

You'd just be lying to yourself, and living, if that's what you want to call it, with the fact that you hate Metalligod simply because he does not agree with you and for many many reasons. And also the fact that he's proved you wrong, on many many points.

Under the given information that he murdered whomever...

Though what you say is true. It proves that you completely missed and avoided the point. My point is, how the hell can you or anyone else be persistant on proclaiming that it is illogical to believe in the possibility of a deity, when we can't be 100 percent positive about the slightest situations.

This situation in which a deity is involved is far more complex than even that of a murder case. We can't always 'know', and you've sent that messages that it is reasonable to be prominant that it's illogical to believe a god exists because there's a lack of evidence that one does.

Like I asked, what evidence do you want? I'm sure we'd all like it.

Yes there is; it would be the ultimate predator and a species capable of ruling without upsetting the proud creature called man.

That's primatively stupid and pious. In the time when man's only weapons were sticks and stones, we would had been wiped out. By you own admission, it would be the ultimate predator, the '10 ton Invisible-Gorrila'and there would be nothing that could oppose it. We would had been happy meals on legs, and therefore, wiped out long ago.

And anyway, if there were such a beast, we would have found it by now, we do have infrared technology these days, ya know? This beast would also be publically known, the farm buisiness would be in peril if not depleted. And again, how the hell would anyone know it was a damned dragon? Plz do tell.

And also explain how the hell anyone who encountered such an efficient killer and survived. That's bull; that's fuckin equivalent to a human escaping the cluthches of Lestat DeLioncourt, (given that he were real).

Essentially, we would never know it exists but it can still hunt us. Perfectly logical reason an invisible dragon would exist.

Like I said, infrared. The bitch would either be a delicacy, or extinct.

Or bred and controlled and sent into war instead on man.

1)The dragon induced visions during the man's sleep telling him to profess its existence.[/i]-- Bull shit! And I won't bother to respond to lame condescending shit like this. Let me leave you with this last response on this subject. It's impossible for such a multicelled beast to be invisible, without the works of technology.

Every situation shouldp be treated with the same credentials. However, the types of evidence present result in having to use one of the two reasoning methods, resulting in different treatment, but the exact same credentials.

Yeah, your beliefs on this are very logical. I bet you'd treat a bombing situation in that very same manner, wouldn't ya. It makes complete sense, if there's a lack of evidence in the bomb debris, then no one made the bomb, it built itself and the program that told it to do so.

And got itself the supplies to make itself, then detonated itself. Very logical Hex, your ideology is far superior than being in existance.

Same with the dragon.

You say that, and not yet given any of these logical reasons you speak of.

"However, I wouldn?t truly believe it, not for a second would I be totally convinced that the beings in my garage are actually aliens. But I would think the informants saw something. I?d think whatever it is it scared the kids, and their fear caused them to morph the description of what they?d seen."

Ah, but these are visible aliens, not invisible ones that avoid detection.[/i]

Yeah, I was quietly pointing out the idiocy of your scenario, or whose ever scenario it was. HOW THE HELL DID THEY SEE THE BEING IF IT WERE INVISIBLE. Do tell.

If one were to see a being in their garage, the proven, factually proven existence of that being, opens speculation as to what it is.

No it does not, your logic isn't very logical. As we know(hopefully), fear and/or ignorance can cause humans to 'hype' the things they've seen. As I've pointed out with vampire cases, and many many others.

Actually, you are assessing it the same. You are taking the verbiage...

No it was/is not uniform. You pointed out but failed to notice that I assessed these scenarios in different degress. If I'd applied the logic you find reasonable to this situation, I'd come up with: No I don't believe there's a vampire in the garage, because you, have a lack of evidence. So I'm not moving, Hmf.

Which is inane. Now apply it to all the situations I've presented, they ALL HAVE THE SAME ANSWER. The dudes had a lack of evidence, so why should I move?

It's not logical reasoning to assume something without evidence.

Need I freakin say more? I've said that to you, nearly A BILLION TIMES! A LACK OF EVIDENCE PROVES NOTHING BUT A LACK OF EVIDENCE. Yor arguement is that it is logical to dismiss something based on the idea that there is a lack of evidence.

And I've noticed that you've yet to respond to the 'conjectures' issue. What about those conjectures? Some of them are just theories, thoughts, etc. Should they be dismissed?

It is logical reasoning to determine your level of skepticism based on previous experience, however. It is never okay to dismiss logical reasoning, else you find yourself going quite insane due to all the contradictions that arise, the mind can only bullshit itself into believing so many contradictions.

But that's the crux of what I'm trying to tell you. You, in the begining, say that it is logical to dismiss logic. Not right out, no, not at all. But when you say it is ok to dismiss something because of a lack of evidence, that's essentially what you're saying, believe it or not.

I believe something should not be dismissed on such a trivial thing, use your minds, that will lead you to logical reasoning. For some, anyway.

It contradicts itself, and is illogical; why cannot you see that the god concept is illogical in just the same way?

Because it simply doesn't. The idea of 'God' contradicts itself, but not the idea of a god. Why can you not see that?

Skepticism is what the lack of evidence should imply; and based on experience with certain people and situations, from there one can determine the level of skepticism to put into it without breaking any of the rules of logical thinking. So I agree with you for the most part.

So what. That's not what we're arguing, we're arguing because you believe it a logical thing to dismiss something do to lack of evidence. And that alone is illogical.

Haha, physically impossible my ass. Moonwalking on stairs is extremely difficult, but it is possible.

HAHA, you can't read; don't take it personal. Because I believe I clearly said, (BTW, this is sad because YOU quoted it): "...moonwalked UP the stairs..."

...I agree with ya here.

OMFG, is it raining fire?!!!

BTW- Why can't you be this kewl on the norm?(And exclude the BS attempt to be right, about the dragon.)

Hexadecimal

2004-05-14, 03:34

Fuck it, I'm not even going to bother with the dragon. Think you're right, go ahead. Go ahead and keep thinking I'm saying it's okay to completely dismiss something based on lack of evidence. I'll just state again what I've been saying the whole thread: It is illogical to assume something true when no evidence supports it. Yes, the logical conclusion CAN be wrong, but when shown to be wrong as evidence is introduced, the logical conclusion changes and then becomes the correct one. Logical workings fix themselves as more variables are figured out; until input is defined though, the default is the assume nothing and to keep searching for input until a conclusion can be reached. That's the entire crux of critical thinking: Finding input (evidence, physical or circumstantial) and coming to a conclusion based on it. No input=no conclusion, as there's nothing to deduce/induce a conclusion from/with.

Metalligod

2004-05-14, 04:00

From/to Hex-If you'd fucking read you'd know I haven't quited down. Nice way to argue though...you know, attacking the presenter rather than the argument. You'd get far in debates.

If you'd learn to fuckin read, bitch, then you'd know that I began attacking what you say and not you. And you'd notice that I've tried to point this very issue out (above) and adressed the fuckin issues, as I've done b4.

I do recall posting various reasons as to why your logic is ill.

From/to Hex-Nothing like laughing at someone making a consistent ass of themself.

I learned it from the best. Also from Hex: Speaking of eating ass, I ate my mother's. It was meaty.

From/to Rust-Why not? Why don't 'logical reasons' exist? Because their is no proof? That's the whole freaking point.

Had you been taught to read, Mr. English is my second language. Then you'd know that I've already POINTED THE 'WHY'S', OF WHY IT IS ILLOGICAL. Serious, learn to read this language before you make it your lot to respond. That's my whole freaking point.

:notashrptoolatall:

What reasons are there to believe that a deity exists? Evidence? What evidence do you have to support your claim?

Because I believe something/someone made the material realm. My evidence is our very being here. I believe again, that something/someone put us here for reasons. And religion, though idiotic, contradictive and 'overly excessed'. It has its great points, great ideology, and the ideas came from somewhere. Well many, many religions from people that live far far apart have some amazingly similar aspects.

By this I mean the characters, I've recently found out that all prechristian religions, including christianity, have some of the same characters. (You'll get the Christian-prechristian thing, if you're smart.)

Christianity(damn that's a long word, from hither to, I'll call it 'C') is/was based on the Hebrew religion, just horribly mistranslated. I've found out in my search to prove Satan's innocence, that the Egyptian god, Thoth, is connected to 'C'. There's an angel, of the highest order might I add, named Metatron. He and Thoth are one in the same. And many many other figures, even Myan religion is connected. It's quite freaking that all these people from vastly different parts of the world have identicle characters, who've been 'recorded' to have said the same things all all the religions.

As some might know, some of the pagan gods were/are only angels according to angeology. Not meant to say, that angeology directly says these things of any/all angels. But like I've said, the 'recordings' of what these beings have said are the same, and some of the 'visions' of them are described the same. But as I've pointed out before, angels have many forms, to perform diff things.

So basically, it's remarkable to me that these beings have been 'seen' by these vastly diverse peoples. And it's worth considering.

But I've veered too far, on to next quote.

You keep missing the point these guys have been trying to hammer into your brain for days. If God exists and has not left any evidence, then there is no reason or imperative to believe that he does exist. He may exist, but you do not have to believe so since no evidence or proof to back the claim have been presented.

No you miss the point. Stop trying to play the hero, because that's not our arguement. I'm trying to tell him that a lack of evidence means nothing, save for that there's a lack of evidence. Had you read, you'd know this. We're talking about the why's and why nots of eachothers reasoning.

We're also debating whether or not, it is logical to use his logic on such a complex issue, and I think not. Now plz learn to read.

'Read, And Ye Shall Find The Answer!'-Try it, it's fun http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif).

Just as I don't have to believe that you have murdered 33 people since there is no evidence to support that claim. You may have killed 33 people, but I have no reason to believe that until I am presented evidence to support that.

You don't even have to consider evidence to come up with the damned answer. Again, had you fuckin read, you'd know that that is the case. Too fuckin lazy, READ, READ , READ! It's not in code.

An intelligent person wouldn't need evidence in this case. They'd just ask what the hell made him come up with such accusations, who have I killed, where are the victims, etc...OH FUCK THIS SHIT i ALREADY EXPLAINED IT. BUT IT SEEMS, YOU CAN'T FUCKIN READ!

Dumbass. You make it sooooo easy. I like cursing you out, it's fun. And it's also funny for the reason that you probably won't understand it anyway, because.......you can't read, you can't read, you can't read.-He he, I'm funny.

P.S.

I only replied in the hope that you leave Totse and never come back. You'd be doing all of us a favor.

PMS, I know it's that time of the month for you, and I'd like to advise that you not devour your pads after you use them. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif). Oh, and you don't count, because you're not human, you matter, not.

I was going to say this to Hex, because I read from bottom to top. (Meaning when I get to the pages, I read the earliest posts first.)

But I saved it for you since it was you that disagreed with me on the issue.

I wish it had been you, instead of Nick Berg, BITCH!

Hexadecimal

2004-05-14, 04:53

"If you'd learn to fuckin read, bitch, then you'd know that I began attacking what you say and not you. And you'd notice that I've tried to point this very issue out (above) and adressed the fuckin issues, as I've done b4."

You still revert to attacking me rather than my arguements; you stay on topic for one or two points then regress into insults, leaving most of my post unanswered. It creates a great deal of ambiguity.

"I do recall posting various reasons as to why your logic is ill."

And I do recall disputing your reasons quite well. I also do admit I don't always understand your arguement, may I suggest using more aphorisms? You have a lot of filler that loses the point, and the constant berating of me and ashes makes it even more difficult to concentrate on what you're trying to say...it's very difficult to put credence into a post when every other sentence is a direct insult rather than a counter-point.

Rust

2004-05-14, 05:18

quote:Had you been taught to read, Mr. English is my second language. Then you'd know that I've already POINTED THE 'WHY'S', OF WHY IT IS ILLOGICAL. Serious, learn to read this language before you make it your lot to respond. That's my whole freaking point

So you avoid the discussion by insulting my reading skills? Did the thought ever cross your head that I might not want to waist my time searching for something you said days ago? Can you not state your reasons in a calm and clear manner for me?

Don’t you agree that me searching for you reasons will bring more confussions?

quote:Because I believe something/someone made the material realm. My evidence is our very being here. I believe again, that something/someone put us here for reasons. And religion, though idiotic, contradictive and 'overly excessed'. It has its great points, great ideology, and the ideas came from somewhere. Well many, many religions from people that live far far apart have some amazingly similar aspects.

You believe a deity exists because we exist?

Our existence is not dependent on a deity’s existence. In other words, us being here is not proof of the existence of a deity. It only proves we exist and that somehow we came about.

quote:

So basically, it's remarkable to me that these beings have been 'seen' by these vastly diverse peoples. And it's worth considering.

How the hell is that proof? It isn't.

Do you believe in mermaids?

quote:No you miss the point. Stop trying to play the hero, because that's not our arguement. I'm trying to tell him that a lack of evidence means nothing, save for that there's a lack of evidence. Had you read, you'd know this. We're talking about the why's and why nots of eachothers reasoning.

They've never argued differently! Of course "lack of evidence means there is lack of evidence" DUH!. What they are arguing (And I'll quote instances of this if you would like) is that because there is no evidence, the you logically do not have to believe. There is no evidence of the existence of a deity, hence you do not have to believe in the existence of a deity.

quote:An intelligent person wouldn't need evidence in this case. They'd just ask what the hell made him come up with such accusations, who have I killed, where are the victims, etc...OH FUCK THIS SHIT i ALREADY EXPLAINED IT. BUT IT SEEMS, YOU CAN'T FUCKIN READ!

What the hell do you think "what made him come up with such accusations", "who have I killed, where are the victims," are? Questions that can only be answered with… EVIDENCE! Thanks for proving my point.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 05-14-2004).]

Kw0nLiE

2004-05-14, 11:39

you guys are boring me to death....

dark-easterbunny

2004-05-14, 11:57

things people "believe" in never exist, look at santa clause, the easterbunny

I mean, you don't believe in the postman do you....why would you as long as he brings you mail

Metalligod

2004-05-14, 22:02

Ya know what Hex...

This was a nasty message, before I came and deleted it. It was all about, how you say I attack you instead of your issues, when thus far, I recall making many many posts that are reasons of why I thought your logic was/is bad.

But then I came across a post that you made later and I couldn't bare to be nasty towards you.

You say that I should use more aphorisms and I shall. I understand that my posts causes confusion amongst you guys. And I realize that that is completely my fault. And so I', sorry, and I'll definately try to be more clear to you guys.

BTW: If you presented all of your arguements to me in this manner, we'd never have a prob. I know good and damned well I have my faults, so I'll try and be more civil towards you guys.

And the next time you call me an ass, you betta get it right... I'm a Jackass!

[This message has been edited by Metalligod (edited 05-14-2004).]

[This message has been edited by Metalligod (edited 05-14-2004).]

Metalligod

2004-05-15, 01:47

So you avoid the discussion by insulting my reading skills? Did the thought ever cross your head that I might not want to waist my time searching for something you said days ago? Can you not state your reasons in a calm and clear manner for me?

Don’t you agree that me searching for you reasons will bring more confussions?

Bitch, plz tell me which fuckin question I avoided, you lying fucktard. Though I hate you, I'll abide simply because you asked maturely and nicely. And by, 'I might not want to waist my time' I'll assume that you meant, 'waste my time'.

No, I change my mind. You mean to tell me that you read all that shit, and you just happened to miss everything I said about why his logic makes no sense? Too freakin bad. You made the time to find out what the hell they were talking about, and more time to make an ignorant response to me. So if you want to know what I said on it, then you'll just have to learn to read. As I've said before, I hate repeating myself, and don't ask me to do it again.

And then, what you say about not wanting to go back is BULL SHIT! You've gone back as far as the second page, and you expect me to be kind to you, eat shit.

Any fuckin way, why the hell should I fuckin listen to you? You make yourself sound like a dumbass when you admit that you're making a goddamned reply to me on something you didn't even bother to take my reply into deliberation on. Why the hell should I listen to you, and you won't even bother to read what I've said? Could you explain this?

Don't fuckin reply to me and expect me to be all nice to you when you ask a question I've answered. Why the fuck should anyone listen to you when you find reasons to attack them. You went right for Ashes and Hex's replies and posts, but never bothered to read my response, therefore you're a dumbass for expecting me to be kind, or rather wanting me to be.

You try and gang up on me with someone else, then expect me to be kind to you, bitch plz. Why don't you help your friend Ashes out, dig him out of his own shit. He's a liar just as you are, and it kills him that I've proven so. He can't stand it that I've disproved essentially everything he and Hex said about physics. He can't get over the fact, that he still believes I used fission wrong. When I was correct in saying that it involved the splitting of atoms. Therefore proving Knowlie and he are highly unintelligent. Go console him.

You believe a deity exists because we exist?

Our existence is not dependent on a deity’s existence. In other words, us being here is not proof of the existence of a deity. It only proves we exist and that somehow we came about.

You believe that I have no foundation for being nasty to you people? I don't recall saying that I actually believe in a deity. I recall saying that I believe in THE POSSIBILITY THAT A DEITY EXISTS. Read, it's really fuckin simple. I also believe in the very post you quoted, I stated that I believe SOMETHING, could have made us. Which, BTW is not a being, when indicating an actual being, one uses the word, SOMEONE.

Though I will concede a little on this issue, because again, I believe that some of the misunderstanding is my fault, actually a lot in that section. The whole SOMETHING, thing must have been a little confusing when it had been followed by the phrase, '...put us here for reasons'. However, throughout my posts when speaking on this matter, I've stated quite often and non-confusedly,

*"First off, I don't believe in God or gods. Secondly, I stated only that our inability to prove He/them exists, could mean that He/them does indeed exist."

*"I believe our very being is reason enough to believe in the possibility of a deity."

And many many more equalitive things.

Our existence is not dependent on a deity’s existence. In other words, us being here is not proof of the existence of a deity. It only proves we exist and that somehow we came about.

I never said that our existance was. So where the hell'd ya get that? Plz tell.That's not even close to anything I've said. When did I say that our existance depended on the existance of a deity? I'd love love love to hear that, especially when it is quite well known that I have NO religious background and/or beliefs. Plz speak of a time when I'd stated that a deity does indded exist.

This is proof of your ignorance, because that's not even what our argument's about. Hex knowns that I don't believe in a god. Ashes knowns that I don't beleive in a god. They know full well that I believe in the possibility of a god. Which is what my argument is.

How the hell is that proof? It isn't.

Do you believe in mermaids?

How the hell could you be a being with a funtional brain?! You are dumber than shit. You truly are, I'm not being nasty, you just truly are. When did I say that it was fuckin evidence bitch? Now could you show any evidence that God/gods do NOT exist? Could you plz show me any evidence indicating such? I believe quite often I've stated that, their existance can niether be determined nor disproven. Hex knows that's what my arguement is, Ashes knows this. Why? Hmmm.....Lets see..... Because I've fuckin stated it multiple times.

Like I fuckin said, shit-breathe, learn to fuckin read. Did it ever occur to you that your boy Hex has not praised you once on your fuckin questions? He hasn't because they've already been answered. So bitch don't ask me to re-fuckin-peat myself again.

Do you believe in the Death Fairy? Bitch you need to start if you don't.

They've never argued differently! Of course "lack of evidence means there is lack of evidence" DUH!. What they are arguing (And I'll quote instances of this if you would like) is that because there is no evidence, the you logically do not have to believe. There is no evidence of the existence of a deity, hence you do not have to believe in the existence of a deity.

Ok, by that I'll assume that you meant, 'that you logically don't have to believe.'

Did you not realize that you've just fuckin stated what I'm trying to tell you? We aren't arguing what ever the hell you think we are. And you've just admitted that(and now I quote), "because there is no evidence, the you logically do not have to believe"

Now, why is it that you can't see that that is A FUCKIN PART OF HIS LOGIC, WHICH I SAY IS NOT LOGICAL?!!!

Huh, how fuckin stupid...Anyway, my argument is, A FUCKIN AGAIN, 'a lack of evidence means nothing!' Just because THIS MATTER, lacks evidence, that means in no way that that is a good reason to not believe in a deity. That's just fuckin stupid. Had you learned to read, you would had read the many many many many fuckin reasons 'why' it makes no sense, that I've stated.

This being IS NOT BOUND BY PHYSICS. Therefore, it is unwise to base your ideology on its existance on the fact that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE. I asked several times, 'What evidence do you want'. Followed by my saying, 'I'm sure your not the only one who wants that evidence'. And/or something very like it.

Now, what evidence would you like? What fuckin evidence do you want? I'm sure everyone else does. So tell us, what is it? Why evaluate such a complex issue with such senseless credentials? This is a real question. Why? For what reason do you think it logical, intelligent, and/or wise to assess a situation, such as figuring out whether a god exists or not, with the ideology, that because you can't find physical evidence, concludes that there's no reason to beleive one exists?

How is that logical, when it is well known, that such beings aren't physically bound? Why, when it is obvious that if such a being exists and they don't want to be found by physical beings , that they could make it so that they can't be found. It's in their power. Why do you find it logical to judge such a thing so stupidly, when it is well known that that this a is supernatural being, in discussion?

I ask this because, we are physical beings, bound by physical laws. We can't always know what happened/happens on our own planet. We don't always know what truly happended in situations here. So why then, would one think it logical to assess the existance of a deity with such irreverence? There are/have been murder cases in which someone has committed a crime, but there was absolutely no evidence saying such. So the feind was set free.

If you can't prove someone commited murder, does that then mean that they didn't? I think not, I know that it means only that there's a lack of evidence saying so. He has the ideaology that, 'if 'this' means 'that', then 'tha't means 'this'. Which is not true. If someone can't be convicted of murder, do to lack of evidence, Would you then conclude that it is illogical to think that they did? If this guy from Madesto, Cali, is nulled of the charges against him, do to lack of evidence. Would you then conclude that it is illogical to think that he'd killed his wife?

I you had two dogs, and you left them at home with your visting brother. And you came home, to find out that some being shitted on your rug while you were away. Would you conclude that niether of the dogs nor your brother shitted on your rug because there's a lack of evidence showing which one did it? There's no reason to punish your dogs because you don't know where the shit came from. No reason to be mad at your bro, because you don't know who did it. Would you then conclude that none of them did it?

Remember there's no evidence showing that any of them did it. DNA, won't work, because fecal matter is identicle, save for the fact that we don't all eat the same things in unison. But remember, shit could be in the body for years before it's removed. And dogs sometimes eat 'people' food. Can't smell there asses, because shit is shit. And sometimes some peoples shit smells like that of a dog's. Would you find it illogical to accuse any of them? Don't say no, because the shit came from somewhere, because I'd insert the fact that, SO DID PEOPLE. What would be your answer there?

These examples alone prove his logic faulty, and needless to say, not suitable in debate on the existance of a deity. Now, do as I've done and apply his logic to several situations, and you'll find more likely than not. That they'll all have the same answer, and most of the time be wrong. For instance:

Boy: 'Dad, there's someone in the basement.' Dad: 'What makes you say that son?' Boy: 'I heard something.' Dad: 'Prove it.' Boy: 'What? Dad, just go check.' Dad: 'No! You have a lack of evidence, thereofre, there's no reason to believe you.'

So I'm not checking. The boy began to cry. He finally goes to sleep, 2hrs later. Someone comes out of the basement when they're asleep and impales them to death.

That logic is far superior than mines. I do believe even he( Hex) sees/saw flaw in thisas well, sp what are you arguing in his stead for? I'll leave this issue alone. We'll make it a case of 'Agreeing to Disagree'. If you can't see that this logic is faulty, and thusly, see that a lack of evidence is no reason to dismiss the idea that a deity could exist, or anything else. Then you're hopeless and I quit. And BTW, I can't recall this ever being an issue of what someone HAS to do.

What the hell do you think "what made him come up with such accusations", "who have I killed, where are the victims," are? Questions that can only be answered with… EVIDENCE! Thanks for proving my point.

If you think it is neccessary to have EVIDENCE in this situation. Don't ever bother posting to me again, for your own time, I'm telling you this. Don't fuckin bother me, you are the epitome of unintelligence. I can't recall ever needing evidence to kill his case. I can't recall even he(Ashes), rebutting what I said on that issue. Because even he could see that no one needs evidence to solve such a situation. I certainly didn't need evidence to kill his case, so since you do, I'm intellectually superior to you. Therefore, I needn't waste my time with those beneath me(YOU).

Damn it Hex! It's hard to not 'Attack' a being this stupid. It deeply depressing.

BTW: What the hell were you referring to when you made the comment, "He actually believes the shit/stuff he says."-talking to Rust.-Is it possible for you to point out something faulty/false that I've said? And could you prove which ever one you believe it is?

Metallibrain, out.

Metalligod

2004-05-15, 01:54

You fuckwads want proof of gods?

I have found two of them, how you like dem apples.(Literally)

Gateway to goddesses! (http://tsnowphoto.tripod.com/troysnowphotography/id29.html)

Rust

2004-05-15, 02:45

quote:No, I change my mind. You mean to tell me that you read all that shit, and you just happened to miss everything I said about why his logic makes no sense? Too freakin bad. You made the time to find out what the hell they were talking about, and more time to make an ignorant response to me. So if you want to know what I said on it, then you'll just have to learn to read. As I've said before, I hate repeating myself, and don't ask me to do it again

Could it be because I already know what their stance is? They not only speak in a clear and concise manner, but they've already expressed their views on the subject in other threads as opposed to you.

quote:And then, what you say about not wanting to go back is BULL SHIT! You've gone back as far as the second page, and you expect me to be kind to you, eat shit.

Of course I went back as far as the second page... my reply was in the second page! Boy, you really are a genius... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

quote:Any fuckin way, why the hell should I fuckin listen to you? You make yourself sound like a dumbass when you admit that you're making a goddamned reply to me on something you didn't even bother to take my reply into deliberation on. Why the hell should I listen to you, and you won't even bother to read what I've said? Could you explain this?

Because if you don't answer we will waste more time discussing if I got what you meant right, than if you just came out and said it. Are you scared I might refute it?

quote:I don't recall saying that I actually believe in a deity. I recall saying that I believe in THE POSSIBILITY THAT A DEITY EXISTS. Read, it's really fuckin simple. I also believe in the very post you quoted, I stated that I believe SOMETHING, could have made us. Which, BTW is not a being, when indicating an actual being, one uses the word, SOMEONE.

Sorry, but I asked:

"What reasons are there to believe that a deity exists?"

To which you answered: "Because I believe something/someone made the material realm. My evidence is our very being here."

I asked what reasons you have for a deity existing, not for the possibility of it existing. If you didn't agree with the question, then don't asnwer it in the first place.

quote: stated that I believe SOMETHING, could have made us. Which, BTW is not a being, when indicating an actual being, one uses the word, SOMEONE.

You said: "I believe again, that something/someone put us here for reasons".

Who’s' the liar again?

quote:I never said that our existance was. So where the hell'd ya get that? Plz tell.That's not even close to anything I've said. When did I say that our existance depended on the existance of a deity? I'd love love love to hear that, especially when it is quite well known that I have NO religious background and/or beliefs. Plz speak of a time when I'd stated that a deity does indded exist.

I asked you what evidence you had that a deity existed and you answered: "Because I believe something/someone made the material realm.". That's where I got that.

Whether that's what you meant or not, I don't know… I can only base my self on you replying to what I asked.

quote:They know full well that I believe in the possibility of a god. Which is what my argument is

All of them believe there is a possibility of god existing, so I fail to see what the argument is in the first place.

quote:How the hell could you be a being with a funtional brain?! You are dumber than shit. You truly are, I'm not being nasty, you just truly are. When did I say that it was fuckin evidence bitch? Now could you show any evidence that God/gods do NOT exist? Could you plz show me any evidence indicating such? I believe quite often I've stated that, their existance can niether be determined nor disproven. Hex knows that's what my arguement is, Ashes knows this. Why? Hmmm.....Lets see..... Because I've fuckin stated it multiple times.

I asked for evidence, if it is not evidence then leave it the fuck out! What the hell do you expect me to believe it is when my question clearly asks for evidence and that is what you answer with.

You also forgot to answer the question.

quote:Now, why is it that you can't see that that is A FUCKIN PART OF HIS LOGIC, WHICH I SAY IS NOT LOGICAL?!!!

Huh, how fuckin stupid...Anyway, my argument is, A FUCKIN AGAIN, 'a lack of evidence means nothing!' Just because THIS MATTER, lacks evidence, that means in no way that that is a good reason to not believe in a deity. That's just fuckin stupid. Had you learned to read, you would had read the many many many many fuckin reasons 'why' it makes no sense, that I've stated.

So then the absence of evidence of you killing 33 people is "not a good reason to believe you're innocent"?

quote: Why? For what reason do you think it logical, intelligent, and/or wise to assess a situation, such as figuring out whether a god exists or not, with the ideology, that because you can't find physical evidence, concludes that there's no reason to beleive one exists?

Why? The same reason I do't believe you've killed 33 people. Because there is no physical evidence, (no evidence at all for that matter) then I do not believe that you have.

quote:How is that logical, when it is well known, that such beings aren't physically bound? Why, when it is obvious that if such a being exists and they don't want to be found by physical beings , that they could make it so that they can't be found. It's in their power. Why do you find it logical to judge such a thing so stupidly, when it is well known that that this a is supernatural being, in discussion?

This leads us to the other part of the argument. If a god exists and leaves no evidence, then there is no reason to believe he does. We cannot detect him (that would be evidence), hence how does his existence or non-existence affects me in any detectable way? It doesn't because that would be evidence.

Do you believe a Mighty Pink Unicorn exists? I mean, 'he is just using his Might Pink Powers to remain hidden'.

quote:If you can't prove someone commited murder, does that then mean that they didn't?

No. It means I have no reason to believe he did. Which is the whole point.

quote:I you had two dogs, and you left them at home with your visting brother. And you came home, to find out that some being shitted on your rug while you were away. Would you conclude that niether of the dogs nor your brother shitted on your rug because there's a lack of evidence showing which one did it? There's no reason to punish your dogs because you don't know where the shit came from. No reason to be mad at your bro, because you don't know who did it. Would you then conclude that none of them did it?

I go home, ask my brother, "Did you take a shit on the carpet?". Guess what his answer will be... its easy... it starts with the letter "e" .... EVIDENCE. Thank you for proving my point yet again.

Moreover, the shit itself would be evidence.

quote:Boy: 'Dad, there's someone in the basement.' Dad: 'What makes you say that son?' Boy: 'I heard something.' Dad: 'Prove it.' Boy: 'What? Dad, just go check.' Dad: 'No! You have a lack of evidence, thereofre, there's no reason to believe you.'

So I'm not checking. The boy began to cry. He finally goes to sleep, 2hrs later. Someone comes out of the basement when they're asleep and impales them to death.

That you even think this is a worthy analogy is laughable. I'm not refusing to acknowledge evidence as the father in this scenario. If you bring me evidence, or ask me to examine evidence (as the boy asking the father to look in the basement) then I would look at it and examine it.

Another scenario please! This one was just too easy.

quote:Is it possible for you to point out something faulty/false that I've said? And could you prove which ever one you believe it is?

I already have, but like I said you still believe you’re correct; which is even more pitiful.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 05-15-2004).]

Metalligod

2004-05-15, 05:27

Talligod-The bitch, Rust

Could it be because I already know what their stance is? They not only speak in a clear and concise manner, but they've already expressed their views on the subject in other threads as opposed to you.

No.

Of course I went back as far as the second page... my reply was in the second page! Boy, you really are a genius... :Rolleyes:

The gay ass bitch, Rust, said (on the Fifth page. 5th)(order of events): Second- Why not? Why don't 'logical reasons' exist? Because their is no proof? That's the whole freaking point.

Which was in reply to my saying(not to Rust, might I add.): First(from second page)- If that’s what you want to do. However, no, because I’ve never made such a claim, number 1. And 2, there is/are no LOGICAL reason(s) to assume such.

Now mind you, that’s what the bitch, Rust responded to.(But the response again, is on the fifth-5th page). About which I replied:Third- And then, what you say about not wanting to go back is BULL SHIT! You've gone back as far as the second page, and you expect me to be kind to you, eat shit.

To which he replied(I’ll dod it again so no one gets confused:Last- Of course I went back as far as the second page... my reply was in the second page! Boy, you really are a genius... :Rolleyes:

Now this bitch believes she is NOT stupid. For what reason…oh yeah, the bitch is stupid. The fuckin faggot can’t even do a damned smiley correctly. Whatta bitch. You haven’t a scintilla of intelligence, and I wish you were savagely raped to death. This is a clear, gargantuan display of your ignorance and stupidity. Now, as I’ve said, if you want to make a claim, back it up. I could always backup everything I say with facts. It is an evident fact that you are stupid.

Because if you don't answer we'll waste more time discussing if I got what you meant right than if you just came out and said it. Are you scared I might refute it?

Aaaaaant! Wrong answer cunt. It’ll be a waste of time when you don’t read it. And anyway, as I’ve already stated subtly, my answer to that is on page 5. It’s not my fault that your fat ass mother was too stupid to get you into a fuckin school where you could learn English. If you would take Ashes out of your mouth, and get up off of your knees, then you’d realize that your stupid ass made a reply to me, and it was directly 10 posts under my answer to a question you now ask.(On the very same fuckin page, might I add, again.)

BTW, a baby wouldn’t be scared to post something you’d hopelessly try and refute. You don’t possess the intelligence required to match that of a sperm cell. So needless to say, you’re far too below me for me to even entertain the thought of me fearing you, or anything you say.

Sorry, but I asked:

"What REASONS are there to believe that a deity exists?"

Yes you are sorry, and you should die. Yo gay ass asked me a question, a fuckin question to which I replied with various reasons. Can you not fuckin read? Just because someone presents reason to believe in something, does not mean someone has to believe it. You’re a really fuckin stupid cunt. Now please tell me where it is stated as a law or any other demanding way, that if someone presents reason to believe in something, that those absorbing this info, has to believe it. Can you state that info? Now how will you dig yourself out of your shit this time?

I asked what reasons you have for a deity existing, not for the possibility of it existing. Next time get your replies straight.

Bitch you did not ask me what reasons I have for a deity existing. You’re deceitful as I’ve said and proven before. That is not the fuckin question yo gay ass asked me, and it is certainly not the one to which I responded. I swear I wish I could bring people back from the dead. Cause I’d put you feet first into a wood chipper. And everyday I resurrect you only to kill you in long purgatorial fashions.

You said: "I believe again, that something/someone put us here for reasons".

Who’s' the liar again?

You still are. What kinda fuckin question is that? Whatta bitch, whatta deceitful bitch, you are. I’ve alreado stated that I also said: something.

I’ve also stated that it was my fault that that sentence sounds confusing. And I do believe I cleared that issue up. But it seems like you’re still just the deceitful bitch you’ve always been, back to your lame and always failed attempts to demean me. It has worked before, and it won’t work now. I believe I also stated:

Though I will concede a little on this issue, because again, I believe that some of the misunderstanding is my fault, actually a lot in that section. The whole SOMETHING, thing must have been a little confusing when it had been followed by the phrase, '...put us here for reasons'.[/I]

I do believe I said these things long before you’d made the failed lame, incriminating attempt in italic, above. Now bitch go and try to lay the blame on someone else, because like you in life and all your attempts, you’ve failed.

To prove you’re nothing more than a gay sex starved tranzy, who get off on lying, here’s a shiny example of your dishonesty:

I asked you what evidence you had that a deity existed and you answered: "Because I believe something/someone made the material realm.". That's where I got that.

Now here is what you actually asked: What reasons are there to believe that a deity exists? Evidence? What evidence do you have to support your claim?

You questions, though many, sound absolutely nothing like the one you claimed you asked. So to the one you stalk so frequently, Hex, here is a shining example of the true nature of your friend. I wish he had his eyeballs drilled out, and sulfuric acid poured into the empty sockets. Rust, you’re nothing more than a lying deceitful faggot, and you should die slowly.

That's where I got that.

What’s where you got that? You don’t fuckin know what you’re talking about.

Whether that's what you meant or not, I don't know… I can only base my self on you REPLYING TO A QUOTE WITHOUT EVEN QUESTIONING IT.

You can only base [b]your self on my replying? WTF?! It seems to me that you’re a person who’s throwing inconsistent words together and trying to sound smart doing so. The shit makes no sense. And the meaning you’re trying to get across is false. You try to twist and bend what I say, you never take it at face value. Thusly proving, moreover, that you’re a liar.

All of them believe there is a possibility of god existing, so I fail to see what the argument is in the first place.

First of all, that’s because you can’t read. And second, how the hell can you speak for everyone. When the fact of the matter is that not everyone believes in the possibility of a god. Thanx for telling everyone how they feel. So the bitch is all of a sudden, omni-emotional, or whatever and knows how everyone feels. Go jump in front of a bus.

I asked for evidence and that's what you provided. If it is not you evidence then leave it the fuck out! What the hell do you expect me to believe it is when my question clearly asks for evidence and that is what you answer with.

Bitch I believe the questions I answered were: What reasons are there to believe that a deity exists? Evidence?

It’s not my fuckin fault that some stupid bitch bunched the questions together in this manner: What reasons are there to believe that a deity exists? Evidence? What evidence do you have to support your claim?

What fuckin intelligent being can’t determine what questions have been answered after they’ve asked a question? Oh yeah…Rust. Don’t get you dirty panties in a bunch because you don’t intelligent ask things nor can you intelligently distinguish things. I believe it was later on in the post that I addressed your stupid fuckin question, when I stated:

*This being IS NOT BOUND BY PHYSICS.

* 'a lack of evidence means nothing!'

*… such beings aren't physically bound…

*Now, what evidence would you like? What fuckin evidence do you want? I'm sure everyone else does. So tell us, what is it?

I also state quite obviously that the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, of a deities being does NOT exist. If indeed we’re not the evidence. It’s a supernatural being you ignorant piece of shit, so what fuckin evidence is there to leave? I believe I asked you quite frankly, what evidence do you want. It was very clear and concisely, totally not my fault that you CAN’T READ.

You also forgot to answer the question.

First of all, you’re a contradictory bitch. You state that I answered, and then go on to say I didn’t answer. You don’t deserve life. Now which is it bitch? I know for a fact that I answered every question and did not avoid one, as did you. You avoided just about every question I’ve asked.

So then the absence of evidence of you killing 33 people is "not a good reason to believe you're innocent"?

Ok, It’s become quite apparent that you cannot read. I can’t speak any language save for English and French. You’ll have to learn one of the two to understand anything, ok? Go back to school then maybe I’ll give you some of my time. Because it seems as though you can only read what you want to read.

An intelligent person WOULD NOT NEED THE EVIDENCE! Is that big enough for you to see? Can you now read it? Or is it still an English issue? Here let me just…eh..uh…presto! NO THE EVIDENCE IS IRRELEVENT. APPARENTLY ASHES SAW THAT, AND YOU’RE THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN’T. NOTICE THAT YOU’RE THE ONLY ONE HAVING TROUBLE FIGURING THAT OUT. NO EVIDENCE WAS NEEDED. ONE SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIGURE IT OUT IN LESS THAN A MINUTE. JUST ASK THEMSELVES THAT QUESTION. ARE QUITE FRANKLY JUST ASK HIM WHAT DO I LOOK LIKE? THEY’D REALIZE HE’S NEVER SEEN ME, AND FURTHERMORE, HE HAS NO NAMES, LOCATION OF THE VICTIMS. NOR DOES HE KNOW HOW THEY WERE MURDERED. THEREFORE, NO EVIDENCE IS NEEDED, HIS CLAIM IS NNOOTT PLAUSIBLE. BUT THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST QUESTION WOULD MAKE ONE(SAVE FOR YOU) REALIZE HE HAS NO CASE.

Why? The same reason I do't believe you've killed 33 people. Because there is no physical evidence, (no evidence at all for that matter) then I do not believe that you have.

Ok, maybe Hex will sit you down and explain to you how stupid you sound right now. And maybe even try and tell you why that’s wrong on sooo many levels, maybe they’ll even just redirect you to the reasons I’ve raised against that statement. If not, oh well, that’s dumb on you.

Second issue. How the fuck do you know what physical evidence there is? Bitch, you’ve never met me, you don’t know where my victims are/could be. So how the fuck would you know what physical evidence there is? Simply put, YOU WOULDN’T! You a pathetic sack of shit, and your mother probably cursed the day she birthed you. Like I said, there’s no need to examine evidence, one should reason that he’s never seen me nor has he seen the victims he claims that there are. I could have very well killed 33 people, heel I could have killed 66. You wouldn’t be able to examine the evidence because you don’t fuckin know me, or where I live. So what would be your argument then? You’d have none; therefore, you need to concede, because you’re simply wrong about the whole matter.

(If you don’t agree, so what. Just ask ya boy, take into context that I had killed the number of people he claimed I have. No one would be able to examine any evidence, because he knows not the locations nor anything else.)

This leads us to the other part of the argument. If a god exists and leaves no evidence on purpose, then there is no reason to believe he does. We could no detect him (that would be evidence).

Humans have this thing called ‘intuition’. Since the case seems to be, that you don’t believe in the possibility of a deities existence, then just leave the issue alone. Like I fuckin said. How can we make the claim so adamantly, that there’s no deity or reason to believe in one, based on the argument, ‘there no evidence’? That’s idiotic no matter what way you look at it. To say you don’t believe in something because you can’t see it is inane. I believe in the invisible and that’s that. Don’t make any BS claims about dragons and gay shit like that, because that’s not what I’m talking about.

You think it logical, to dismiss a belief in something, based on the fact that there’s no physical evidence. Even though, this being, by nature, is not physical. That makes you seem shallow and unintelligent. Stick to your belief and I’ll stick to mines. I find it illogical to dismiss things, logical things, based on the fact that there’s no existing evidence of such. You don’t believe this, so YOU stick to that. You think there’s no logical reason to believe that a being with preternatural capabilities made our world, I don’t. Lets ‘agree to disagree’. Cause I know you can’t answer those questions and stick to your logic, unless everything I say about you is true.

Do you believe a Might Pink Unicorn exists? I mean, 'he is just using his Might Pink Powers to remain hidden'.

More, proof of your inability to read. There’s no logical reason for such a creature to exist, therefore, it does not. And it also cannot, because magic is not real.

No. It means I have no reason to believe he did. Which is the whole point.

Since you think it reasonable to believe that there’s no possible way that someone killed another, because there’s a lack of evidence, then I needn’t waste time with you. I’ve offered many instance that proves the idiocy of such beliefs. I could kill someone and dissolve them in acid for hours stomping them until no more of them exists. To think it’s logical that because it happens to be a lack of evidence that it’s not logical to think someone killed another. Is completely stupid on behalf of the person who thinks this way, when they know what humans are capable of. Especially when they know, with the right amount of money it’s easy to dispatch evidence. Since humans are this efficient at removing evidence think what a god could do.

I go home, ask my brother, "Did you take a shit on the carpet?". Guess what his answer will be... its easy... it starts with the letter "e" .... EVIDENCE. Thank you for proving my point yet again.

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAAAAAAHAAAAAAAAAAA! That shit is funny. So he’s says to you, ‘evidence’ and that proves what? You are a genius. HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

That you even think this is a worthy analogy is laughable. I'm not refusing to acknowledge evidence as the father in this scenario. If you bring me evidence, or ask me to examine evidence (as the boy asking the father to look in the basement) then I would look at it and examine it.

He never asked the father to examine ‘evi’. He had none, he had only suspicion that someone was in the basement. The father would think that boy is just paranoid, as are all little children at night. Sorry, but you’re the thing that’s too easy.

I already have, but like I said you still believe you’re correct; which is even more pitiful.

No you have not. You’re now proving the point that you’re a lair. Which everyone now knows is true. And not once have you proven anything I’ve said false nor faulty. So try again, go lil slugger, and explain why it’s false or faulty. Oh, but you can’t because there’s nothing false or faulty to examine.

Metalligod, out. :Phrase for the night, ‘Bitch don’t correct me!’: That’s for those who’ll bitch about spelling, point it out cause I don’t care, I’m tired, Toni’s kick in.

-MelaTonin-

Rust

2004-05-15, 06:32

quote:Which was in reply to my saying(not to Rust, might I add.): First(from second page)- If that’s what you want to do. However, no, because I’ve never made such a claim, number 1. And 2, there is/are no LOGICAL reason(s) to assume such.

Err... no you posted that in the 5th page...

How is me quoting something you posted in the 5th page, "going to the second page"?

quote:Bitch you did not ask me what reasons I have for a deity existing. You’re deceitful as I’ve said and proven before. That is not the fuckin question yo gay ass asked me, and it is certainly not the one to which I responded. I swear I wish I could bring people back from the dead. Cause I’d put you feet first into a wood chipper. And everyday I resurrect you only to kill you in long purgatorial fashions.

What the hell is this?:

"What reasons are there to believe that a deity exists?"

Obviously it is meant to you because I'm arguing with you. What a novel idea!

quote:You still are. What kinda fuckin question is that? Whatta bitch, whatta deceitful bitch, you are. I’ve alreado stated that I also said: something.

You also said someone...

Yes you said it was partially your fault... then don't get angry with me.

quote:I’ve also stated that it was my fault that that sentence sounds confusing. And I do believe I cleared that issue up. But it seems like you’re still just the deceitful bitch you’ve always been, back to your lame and always failed attempts to demean me. It has worked before, and it won’t work now. I believe I also stated:

Pot calling the kettle black? If you had used your brain you would see that I'm doing the same shit to you. You called me a liar for a mistake... Remember?

quote: To prove you’re nothing more than a gay sex starved tranzy, who get off on lying, here’s a shiny example of your dishonesty:

I asked you what evidence you had that a deity existed and you answered: "Because I believe something/someone made the material realm.". That's where I got that.

Now here is what you actually asked: What reasons are there to believe that a deity exists? Evidence? What evidence do you have to support your claim?

What the fuck is this? : “What evidence do you have to support your claim?” What the fuck is your claim?

quote: You can only base your self on my replying? WTF?! It seems to me that you’re a person who’s throwing inconsistent words together and trying to sound smart doing so. The shit makes no sense. And the meaning you’re trying to get across is false. You try to twist and bend what I say, you never take it at face value. Thusly proving, moreover, that you’re a liar

I asked you:

“What reasons are there to believe that a deity exists? Evidence? What evidence do you have to support your claim?”

You said: “Because I believe something/someone made the material realm”

Then I said, in other words, that our existence does not prove the existence of a deity.

Then you said: “I never said that our existance was. So where the hell'd ya get that?”

I answered that I got that from you replying to my first question which was:

“What reasons are there to believe that a deity exists?” You replied that “Because I believe something/someone made the material realm. My evidence is our very being here.”

Get it? Your statement means that “our very being here” is evidence that a deity exists. Why? Because that’s what I asked! If you didn’t mean that then sorry, but like I said I can only base myself on you replying to what I asked.

quote: First of all, that’s because you can’t read. And second, how the hell can you speak for everyone. When the fact of the matter is that not everyone believes in the possibility of a god. Thanx for telling everyone how they feel. So the bitch is all of a sudden, omni-emotional, or whatever and knows how everyone feels. Go jump in front of a bus.

By “everyone” I meant Ashes, Dark_Magneto and Hex. I thought that it was pretty evident but I apparently you managed to miss that.

Now, do you claim they believe otherwise? Let them tell me they believe otherwise. I’m pretty confident that I’m correct.

quote: Bitch I believe the questions I answered were: What reasons are there to believe that a deity exists? Evidence?

It’s not my fuckin fault that some stupid bitch bunched the questions together in this manner: What reasons are there to believe that a deity exists? Evidence? What evidence do you have to support your claim

All three of those questions ask for evidence genius! Hence, if you reply to it, I must assume that you’re providing the evidence I asked for.

quote: I also state quite obviously that the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, of a deities being does NOT exist. If indeed we’re not the evidence. It’s a supernatural being you ignorant piece of shit, so what fuckin evidence is there to leave? I believe I asked you quite frankly, what evidence do you want. It was very clear and concisely, totally not my fault that you CAN’T READ.

If they are supernatural they can choose not to leave physical evidence or to leave it. That’s the whole freaking point! If they exist and do not leave any evidence that we can perceive, then there is no reason for us to believe in their existence.

quote: First of all, you’re a contradictory bitch. You state that I answered, and then go on to say I didn’t answer. You don’t deserve life. Now which is it bitch? I know for a fact that I answered every question and did not avoid one, as did you. You avoided just about every question I’ve asked.

You didn’t answer the question. “Do you believe in mermaids?”… But never mind now, don’t answer it.

quote: THEY’D REALIZE HE’S NEVER SEEN ME, AND FURTHERMORE, HE HAS NO NAMES, LOCATION OF THE VICTIMS. NOR DOES HE KNOW HOW THEY WERE MURDERED. THEREFORE, NO EVIDENCE IS NEEDED, HIS CLAIM IS NNOOTT PLAUSIBLE. BUT THE ANSWER TO THE FIRST QUESTION WOULD MAKE ONE(SAVE FOR YOU) REALIZE HE HAS NO CASE.

Thank you for yet again proving my point!

What ‘are the names'? What is ‘the location of the victims’? What is ‘how the were murdered’? Evidence. What is my point all along? That if there is no evidence then I do not have to believe that you have killed 33 people! Get it? Because there is no evidence then I do not believe you have killed people. Thank you.

quote: Second issue. How the fuck do you know what physical evidence there is? Bitch, you’ve never met me, you don’t know where my victims are/could be. So how the fuck would you know what physical evidence there is? Simply put, YOU WOULDN’T! You a pathetic sack of shit, and your mother probably cursed the day she birthed you. Like I said, there’s no need to examine evidence, one should reason that he’s never seen me nor has he seen the victims he claims that there are. I could have very well killed 33 people, heel I could have killed 66. You wouldn’t be able to examine the evidence because you don’t fuckin know me, or where I live. So what would be your argument then? You’d have none; therefore, you need to concede, because you’re simply wrong about the whole matter.

Where the fuck have I said otherwise? I know that I have not met you, that is why I have no evidence to support the claim that you have killed people! When and if I ever meet you, and when I have found evidence, then I would believe that you did kill them. Again, thank you for proving my point.

quote: How can we make the claim so adamantly, that there’s no deity or reason to believe in one, based on the argument, ‘there no evidence’? That’s idiotic no matter what way you look at it. To say you don’t believe in something because you can’t see it is inane. I believe in the invisible and that’s that.

You can make the argument that there is no reason to believe in one. That doesn’t require evidence of any sort, it actually requires lack of evidence. What you cannot claim is that there is no deity because that requires evidence.

quote: You think it logical, to dismiss a belief in something, based on the fact that there’s no physical evidence.

No. I believe there is no reason to believe in a god’s existence if there is no proof. There is a big difference which you keep missing.

quote: More, proof of your inability to read. There’s no logical reason for such a creature to exist, therefore, it does not. And it also cannot, because magic is not real.

Classic! Why is there no logical reason for such a creature to exist? Also, why is magic not real? Hell I didn't even mention the word magic so I have no clue why your brought it up.

quote: HAAAAAAAAA AAAAHAAAAA AHAAAAAAAAAAA! That shit is funny. So he’s says to you, ‘evidence’ and that proves what? You are a genius. HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

You misunderstood. He will say something. That something, what ever it may be, will be evidence. Get it now? When I ask him he will probably say “The dog did it” and THAT is evidence.

I said “Guess what his answer will be...” which I agree sounds confusing. His answer will be evidence, but I didn’t mean he would say the word "evidence".

quote: He never asked the father to examine ‘evi’. He had none, he had only suspicion that someone was in the basement. The father would think that boy is just paranoid, as are all little children at night. Sorry, but you’re the thing that’s too easy.

Same shit. Like I said, I’m willing to examine evidence or possible evidence unlike the father. The analogy is therefore wrong.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 05-15-2004).]

Metalligod

2004-05-15, 22:12

Err... no you posted that in the 5th page...

How is me quoting something you posted in the 5th page, "going to the second page"?

My bad. My retarded fault, I admit it. I even stated that it was from the fifth page afterwards, which was extra retarded on my behalf. Like I said, Toni was kickin my ass.

What the hell is this?:

"What reasons are there to believe that a deity exists?"

That’s a question asking me what reason are there to believe in a deity. That’s not the same as asking me, “I asked what reasons you have for a deity existing…”

Two very different questions, which would have two very DIFFERENT answers. You need to reassess what you think you know about English. Now one question, the first one, asks what reasons are there to believe in something. And I recall telling you that the two are ver different. Telling someone reason to believe in something, is just that ,reasons. Now the second question does not ask for reason, and that’s not the question you asked me. So there therefore you were being deceitful, because they SIMPLY ARE NOT THE SAME.

If I were to answer the second question, I’d be stating a DEFINATE! And I don’t know as a definite that God or gods exist. So I wouldn’t have answered that question had you asked it. Now can you see that the two are different? The first asks for reason, the second demands a definite answer. I have no reason for a deity EXISTING, I don’t freakin know for a fact that one exists. As I’ve said time and time again, I BELIEVE IN THE POSSIBILITY. Ya dig?

You also said someone...

Yes you said it was partially your fault... then don't get angry with me.

Dude, I didn’t get angry with you for that reason as I’ve stated I believe it was my fault, Because I made it confusing. I was angry with you for the various other things, you just don’t seem to comprehend things as well as others, and it’s very frustrating. Especially when you ask me to repeat myself. It’s all about communication, and we have bad communication. It’s like we’re on cell phones, and there’s a lot of static interference. I’m saying, ‘I have a huge problem with you’, and you’re hearing, ‘I had a nude possum pistol’. Which makes NO sense, I feel like you purpose distort what I say, even when I’ve made it clear.

Pot calling the kettle black? If you had used your brain you would see that I'm doing the same shit to you. You called me a liar for a mistake... Remember?

It’s not a mistake to say that someone was ‘cast out’ of somewhere, and when I ask you, ‘when was there a confrontation in Genesis’. And you respond, ‘I never said there was a confrontation in Genesis’. That’s a flat out lie. To cast someone out, is to CONFRONT them. It’s simply a lie.

What the fuck is this? : “What evidence do you have to support your claim?” What the fuck is your claim?

Had you read what I said then you’d know. I specifically showed that you DID NOT, ask me, “…what evidence you had that a deity existed…”

That again, IS NOT what you asked. What you asked was, “What reasons are there to believe that a deity exists? Evidence? What evidence do you have to support your claim?”

Now why is it that when I showed what you ACTUALLY asked, and what you claimed you asked, and it was clear that they were TWO DIFFERENT things, that you would fuckin turn around and ask me, ““What evidence do you have to support your claim?” What the fuck is your claim?”

Bitch you answered your own question, my claim was that YOU ARE A LIAR. And I proved that when you lied and said you asked one thing, when you did not. That’s what’s called a lie. Now I wouldn’t have pointed it out, had the case not been that you were trying to incriminate me in the process. Don’t ask me how just go back a read. That’s what everyone else does.

Get it? Your statement means that “our very being here” is evidence that a deity exists. Why? Because that’s what I asked! If you didn’t mean that then sorry, but like I said I can only base myself on you replying to what I asked.

Get it. NO THE FUCK IT DOES NOT! BITCH I TOLD YOU TIME AND TIME AGAIN, THAT THERE IS NOT FUCKIN EVIDENCE! IT IS NOT A PHYSICAL BEING, SO WHAT FUCKIN EVIDENCE IS THERE. YOU DID NOT ASK ME ONE QUESTION AT A TIME, SO THEREFORE, IT IS YOUR OWN DAMNED FAULT THAT YOU’RE CONFUSED. I DIDN’T TELL YOU TO BLOCK THREE OR FOUR QUESTION TOGETHER. BITCH I ANSWERED THOSE THAT I COULD ANSWER, I THEN STATED THAT THERE IS NOT EVIDENCE THAT A DEITY ACTUALLY EXISTS. WHY THE FUCK IS THAT SOOOO HARD TO DETERMINE.

HOW THE FUCK CAN YOU SAY THAT MY ANSWER IS THEREFORE MY EVIDENCE? BITCH I WAS NOT ANSWERING THAT QUESTION JUST YET, THAT WAS NOT THE ONLY QUESTION THERE. SO HOW CAN YOU DETERMINE THAT I WAD ANSWERING THE LAST QUESTION THAT WAS IN A BLOCK OF QUESTIONS? ESPECIALLY AFTER I STATED THAT THE QUESTION HAS NO ANSWER, YOU STUPID FUCKIN BITCH!

By “everyone” I meant Ashes, Dark_Magneto and Hex. I thought that it was pretty evident but I apparently you managed to miss that.

Now, do you claim they believe otherwise? Let them tell me they believe otherwise. I’m pretty confident that I’m correct.

Yes I do believe that they believe otherwise, because they’ve told me so. When you say that it is illogical to believe something, you are therefore saying that you don’t believe in that something, and it is stupid to believe in that something. Is that too hard to understand for you? Tell me how can you say ‘it is illogical to believe in turkeys’ and then still believe in turkeys. If you say it is illogical to believe something, then you’re saying you don’t believe it is possible because IT IS ILLOGICAL. Ya dig?

All three of those questions ask for evidence genius! Hence, if you reply to it, I must assume that you’re providing the evidence I asked for.

A reason is not evidence, dumbass. And yet again, since you are too fuckin dumb to read things, I won’t bother to say that no evidence exists on a non-physical creatures existence, because they’re not physical.

If they are supernatural they can choose not to leave physical evidence or to leave it. That’s the whole freaking point! If they exist and do not leave any evidence that we can perceive, then there is no reason for us to believe in their existence.

Like I said, lets agree to disagree, because you’re not intelligent. And I’ve grown weary of arguing with someone who has not a brain to rely upon. You’re just not an intelligent person and I don’t care to cary on with you, so could you please leave me alone. Like I fuckin said, you believe that there’s no logical reason to believe in something because IT CAN REMOVE EVIDENCE. Which is very stupid ideology for stupid people. Why is logical to not believe in something do to lack of evidence, when it is known to you that it’s very easy for this ‘thing’ to dispatch evidence? By your own admission, you know that someone is capable of removing, or leaving no evidence. Yet you say it is illogical to believe something, if there is no evidence? And you believe that’s intelligent? You find it illogical to take in to context, that someone or something could have simply removed the evidence. Yeah, you’re really smart. Genius! And no one could ever compare.

I quit, now plz leave me alone. Both you and I have shown how very smart it is to dismiss the fact that you know someone could remove the evidence, so therefore, if they commit a crime and remove the evidence, then we should believe that they haven’t done anything at all, because they removed the evidence. I get it now, it makes total sense, so please don’t bother me any longer. Yes I believe in mermaids, I’ve seen them in the sea and in the zoo. They also have another name called ‘manatee’. Now don’t ask me anything else please, I’ve grown bored of you, and I don’t care to converse with you. Could you please leave me alone? All questions are rhetorical, it’s not like you answer them anyway, so don’t bother replying.

What ‘are the names'? What is ‘the location of the victims’? What is ‘how the were murdered’? Evidence. What is my point all along? That if there is no evidence then I do not have to believe that you have killed 33 people! Get it? Because there is no evidence then I do not believe you have killed people. Thank you.

I believe I first stated that no one would need to know those things, but whatever. I believe I stated that all those things were unnecessary, but whatever. I believe I said someone could ask Ashes, ‘What do I look like’. And not even have to use the evidence because he has no basis for his claim. Because what I look like is not evidence, that’s not relevant in cases. The fact that someone could say how someone looks, is not evidence. I witness claims are just ‘position swaying’ tools in cases, and they are usually town out as evidence. As I’d pointed out at one point when I brought up the ‘Greensboro Murders’. Or was it ‘Jonesboro? Whichever one doesn’t really matter because the fact remains that looks aren’t truly relevant in cases.

Where the fuck have I said otherwise? I know that I have not met you, that is why I have no evidence to support the claim that you have killed people! When and if I ever meet you, and when I have found evidence, then I would believe that you did kill them. Again, thank you for proving my point.

I’ll tell where where the fuck you said it. But you needn’t respond, bitch, because I don’t care to respond to you any longer, what you say will just waste your time. I guess this once again, proves that you are a LIAR, or rather, once again that you can’t read. You specifically stated:

Why? The same reason I do't believe you've killed 33 people. Because there is no physical evidence, (no evidence at all for that matter) then I do not believe that you have.

Need I say more? If so, so what because I won’t. Oh and BTW, you state that:

Where the fuck have I said otherwise? I know that I have not met you, that is why I have no evidence to support the claim that you have killed people! When and if I ever meet you, and when I have found evidence, then I would believe that you did kill them. Again, thank you for proving my point.

You admit that there is no need to use evidence. You said that you ‘know you haven’t met me, that is why you have no evidence’. You are proving that you DON’T NEED EVIDENCE TO RPOVE THAT HE HAD NO BASIS FOR MAKING SUCH A CLAIM, THUSLY NO ONE WOULD NEED TO LOOK FOR EVIDENCE BECAUSE THEY’D REALIZE HIS CLAIM WAS UNREASONABLE. THEREFORE, THEY DON’T HAVE TO USE EVIDENCE TO KNOW THAT I HADN’T KILLED ANYONE HE CLAIMED I HAVE.

You can make the argument that there is no reason to believe in one. That doesn’t require evidence of any sort, it actually requires lack of evidence.

I never said that someone needed evidence to not believe in a deity. Wtf are you talking about? Ya know what, save it, cause I don’t care to know. REASONS to not BELIEVE require REASONS. Just as REASONS to BELIEVE requires REASONS. Which is what you asked for, not REASONS to EXIST. Now you believe it intelligent to say that there’s no reason to believe a deity exists because there’s a lack of evidence. But what evidence is there to be left by a non-physical being? Again, rhetoric.

As for what you say about the unicorn, I’ll chalk that up to the fact that you’re stupid caused you to say anything about magic. Because, aren’t unicorns magical creatures? And also by definition, MYTHICAL? Now, for what reasons would a creature be made the way that’s supposedly made? No reasons, it’s illogical. And magic is not real because physics prove that much. But apparently you did NOT go to school here in America. The creatures proportions are unnecessary, but again, you weren’t schooled in America obviously, or you were and didn’t pay attention.

You misunderstood. He will say something. That something, what ever it may be, will be evidence. Get it now? When I ask him he will probably say “The dog did it” and THAT is evidence.

First of all, that’s not evidence; because he could have very well did it to smite you. And, gain, you say what ever he says will be evidence? Ha fuckin ha, you’re FAR MORE INTELLIGENT than EINSTIEN. I’ll leave this one alone. So what if he says, ‘I don’t know’? That’s evidence? HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! That’s some funny shit, again, all rhetoric. No need to reply, thank you. I give up, ok. I’ll argue with Hex, and many others, but I’ll suggest that you not expect anymore replies from me. And what you said about Hex and the others not saying anything to you, indicating that you’re wrong, well you’re ovibously a friend of some sort to them, and may be the fact really is the LOGICAL ONE. They don’t want to make you feel bad, ya know, get your panties al bunched up.

And what you said about the analogy is false, but never mind that. Because like I said, according to his logic, that’s the way things’ll play out. Lack of evidence, indicates no need to believe something. That is the faulty logic that was being debated.

Rust

2004-05-16, 00:38

quote:Two very different questions, which would have two very DIFFERENT answers. You need to reassess what you think you know about English. Now one question, the first one, asks what reasons are there to believe in something. And I recall telling you that the two are ver different. Telling someone reason to believe in something, is just that ,reasons. Now the second question does not ask for reason, and that’s not the question you asked me. So there therefore you were being deceitful, because they SIMPLY ARE NOT THE SAME.

If I were to answer the second question, I’d be stating a DEFINATE! And I don’t know as a definite that God or gods exist. So I wouldn’t have answered that question had you asked it. Now can you see that the two are different? The first asks for reason, the second demands a definite answer. I have no reason for a deity EXISTING, I don’t freaking know for a fact that one exists. As I’ve said time and time again, I BELIEVE IN THE POSSIBILITY. Ya dig?

The question themselves are the same the only difference is the target. One is aimed at reasons the general public could have, the other is reasons you have.

Now, lets look at how you responded: "Because I believe something/someone made the material realm."

You obviously answered as if the question was aimed at you! Now, you may have wanted to say it in general but you said "Because I"

This may be one of those misunderstandings again, but it’s not my fault you answered like that is it.

quote:It’s not a mistake to say that someone was ‘cast out’ of somewhere, and when I ask you, ‘when was there a confrontation in Genesis’. And you respond, ‘I never said there was a confrontation in Genesis’. That’s a flat out lie. To cast someone out, is to CONFRONT them. It’s simply a lie.

No. Confrontation in this specific case means a fight. In all cases confrontation means a fight, or being face to face. Being cast out does not necessarily mean a fight has occurred nor that they were face to face.

quote:Had you read what I said then you’d know. I specifically showed that you DID NOT, ask me, “…what evidence you had that a deity existed…”

That again, IS NOT what you asked. What you asked was, “What reasons are there to believe that a deity exists? Evidence? What evidence do you have to support your claim?”

Now why is it that when I showed what you ACTUALLY asked, and what you claimed you asked, and it was clear that they were TWO DIFFERENT things, that you would fuckin turn around and ask me, ““What evidence do you have to support your claim?” What the fuck is your claim?”

Bitch you answered your own question, my claim was that YOU ARE A LIAR. And I proved that when you lied and said you asked one thing, when you did not. That’s what’s called a lie. Now I wouldn’t have pointed it out, had the case not been that you were trying to incriminate me in the process. Don’t ask me how just go back a read. That’s what everyone else does.

See above, you answered the question as if it was aimed at you. Therefore you understood it was aimed at you. Moreover, I asked you for reasons to support your claim? What was the claim? That lack of evidence does not mean we should not believe in a deity.

quote:Get it. NO THE FUCK IT DOES NOT! BITCH I TOLD YOU TIME AND TIME AGAIN, THAT THERE IS NOT FUCKIN EVIDENCE! IT IS NOT A PHYSICAL BEING, SO WHAT FUCKIN EVIDENCE IS THERE. YOU DID NOT ASK ME ONE QUESTION AT A TIME, SO THEREFORE, IT IS YOUR OWN DAMNED FAULT THAT YOU’RE CONFUSED. I DIDN’T TELL YOU TO BLOCK THREE OR FOUR QUESTION TOGETHER. BITCH I ANSWERED THOSE THAT I COULD ANSWER, I THEN STATED THAT THERE IS NOT EVIDENCE THAT A DEITY ACTUALLY EXISTS. WHY THE FUCK IS THAT SOOOO HARD TO DETERMINE.

HOW THE FUCK CAN YOU SAY THAT MY ANSWER IS THEREFORE MY EVIDENCE? BITCH I WAS NOT ANSWERING THAT QUESTION JUST YET, THAT WAS NOT THE ONLY QUESTION THERE. SO HOW CAN YOU DETERMINE THAT I WAD ANSWERING THE LAST QUESTION THAT WAS IN A BLOCK OF QUESTIONS? ESPECIALLY AFTER I STATED THAT THE QUESTION HAS NO ANSWER, YOU STUPID FUCKIN BITCH!

Then evidence of what is it? You said it was evidence, then evidence of what is it?

.... If I ask you for a evidence and you bring that then what the hell I'm I supposed to think it is?

Again, I ask you, was it not your claim that lack of evidence isn't a reason to not believe in a deity? Well I asked evidence to back up your claim..

quote:Yes I do believe that they believe otherwise, because they’ve told me so. When you say that it is illogical to believe something, you are therefore saying that you don’t believe in that something, and it is stupid to believe in that something. Is that too hard to understand for you? Tell me how can you say ‘it is illogical to believe in turkeys’ and then still believe in turkeys. If you say it is illogical to believe something, then you’re saying you don’t believe it is possible because IT IS ILLOGICAL. Ya dig?

You forgot the key part. It is illogical to believe in it without evidence!

As for what they believe, these are all examples of they believing that because there is no evidence to support the claim that a deity exists, then it is illogical to believe in it:

Craftian agreeing with me:

“No it's not. We had enough evidence in other forms to convict these people of these crimes.

We have absolutely no evidence that deities exist.”

“It's not about *cannot* exist, it's about we have no reason to think they exist.”

Dark_Magneto agreeing with me:

“That's what known as an argument from ignorance. Because we have nothing indicating supernatural godforces exist, there is no reason to believe they do until provided with hard corroborative evidence indocating so and not otherwise.”

Hexadecimal agreeing with me:

“Ninjas could have raided my house and not left evidence, but due to lack of evidence there's no reasoning behind the belief that ninjas raided my god damned house, you fucking imbecile.”

Ashes agreeing with me:

“It is a good reason to disbelieve. Did you read the article that he's been linking to a lot recently, at all?”

quote:A reason is not evidence, dumbass. And yet again, since you are too fuckin dumb to read things, I won’t bother to say that no evidence exists on a non-physical creatures existence, because they’re not physical.

Reasons are backed up with evidence. Thanks again. Also, I already dealt with your idea of the evidence not being physical. If we can't perceive it, then there is no reason to believe it exists.

For future reference, it being “physical” or “un-physical” is irrelevant. The point is if its DETECTABLE or NOT DETECTABLE.

Why should we believe in something that is not detectable, which means that by definition we cannot detect it by any way or form. Do you believe that a undetectable ghost is following you right now?

quote:Like I said, lets agree to disagree, because you’re not intelligent. And I’ve grown weary of arguing with someone who has not a brain to rely upon. You’re just not an intelligent person and I don’t care to cary on with you, so could you please leave me alone. Like I fuckin said, you believe that there’s no logical reason to believe in something because IT CAN REMOVE EVIDENCE. Which is very stupid ideology for stupid people. Why is logical to not believe in something do to lack of evidence, when it is known to you that it’s very easy for this ‘thing’ to dispatch evidence? By your own admission, you know that someone is capable of removing, or leaving no evidence. Yet you say it is illogical to believe something, if there is no evidence? And you believe that’s intelligent? You find it illogical to take in to context, that someone or something could have simply removed the evidence. Yeah, you’re really smart. Genius! And no one could ever compare.

I quit, now plz leave me alone. Both you and I have shown how very smart it is to dismiss the fact that you know someone could remove the evidence, so therefore, if they commit a crime and remove the evidence, then we should believe that they haven’t done anything at all, because they removed the evidence. I get it now, it makes total sense, so please don’t bother me any longer. Yes I believe in mermaids, I’ve seen them in the sea and in the zoo. They also have another name called ‘manatee’. Now don’t ask me anything else please, I’ve grown bored of you, and I don’t care to converse with you. Could you please leave me alone? All questions are rhetorical, it’s not like you answer them anyway, so don’t bother replying.

You keep missing the point! I'm not saying that they could not remove the evidence. Of course they could, we're talking about gods!

Yet if the evidence exists, but we cannot perceive or feel it in any freaking way, then there is no reason to believe it exists. Just as you don't believe a Mighty Pink Unicorn exists...

quote:I believe I first stated that no one would need to know those things, but whatever. I believe I stated that all those things were unnecessary, but whatever. I believe I said someone could ask Ashes, ‘What do I look like’. And not even have to use the evidence because he has no basis for his claim. Because what I look like is not evidence, that’s not relevant in cases. The fact that someone could say how someone looks, is not evidence. I witness claims are just ‘position swaying’ tools in cases, and they are usually town out as evidence. As I’d pointed out at one point when I brought up the ‘Greensboro Murders’. Or was it ‘Jonesboro? Whichever one doesn’t really matter because the fact remains that looks aren’t truly relevant in cases.

Again, so you can understand. Because Ashes does not know "how you look like", THAT is lack of evidence, which is my point entirely. If I lack evidence incriminating you to a crime then logically I do not have to believe you committed the crime! "How you look" "How you killed the people" "How many people you killed" All of that is evidence, If there is no evidence, then there is no reason to believe the claim!

quote:I’ll tell where where the fuck you said it. But you needn’t respond, bitch, because I don’t care to respond to you any longer, what you say will just waste your time. I guess this once again, proves that you are a LIAR, or rather, once again that you can’t read. You specifically stated:

Why? The same reason I do't believe you've killed 33 people. Because there is no physical evidence, (no evidence at all for that matter) then I do not believe that you have.

How the fuck is that me saying that I have met you? I haven't! That's the whole point!

What did you think I meant when I said “Where have I said otherwise?” It meant when have I said that I DID meet you… I haven’t.

Physical or any evidence supporting the claim is lacking, therefore I do not have to believe the claim that you have killed 33 people.

quote:You admit that there is no need to use evidence. You said that you ‘know you haven’t met me, that is why you have no evidence’. You are proving that you DON’T NEED EVIDENCE TO RPOVE THAT HE HAD NO BASIS FOR MAKING SUCH A CLAIM, THUSLY NO ONE WOULD NEED TO LOOK FOR EVIDENCE BECAUSE THEY’D REALIZE HIS CLAIM WAS UNREASONABLE. THEREFORE, THEY DON’T HAVE TO USE EVIDENCE TO KNOW THAT I HADN’T KILLED ANYONE HE CLAIMED I HAVE.

Yes, I'm saying that because there is no evidence supporting the claim, then I don't need to believe you have killed people. But I DO use evidence. If I ask Ashes "How did he kill the people" and he answers "I don't know." THAT is evidence. The thing is, it isn't supporting the argument that you killed people; on the contrary it supports the argument that you haven't.

quote:I never said that someone needed evidence to not believe in a deity. Wtf are you talking about? Ya know what, save it, cause I don’t care to know. REASONS to not BELIEVE require REASONS. Just as REASONS to BELIEVE requires REASONS. Which is what you asked for, not REASONS to EXIST. Now you believe it intelligent to say that there’s no reason to believe a deity exists because there’s a lack of evidence. But what evidence is there to be left by a non-physical being? Again, rhetoric.

You said, "How can we make the claim so adamantly, that there’s no deity or reason to believe in one, based on the argument".

I clarified that you CAN make the claim that you there is no reason to believe in a deity. What you CAN'T do is make the claim that there is no deity.

quote:As for what you say about the unicorn, I’ll chalk that up to the fact that you’re stupid caused you to say anything about magic. Because, aren’t unicorns magical creatures? And also by definition, MYTHICAL? Now, for what reasons would a creature be made the way that’s supposedly made? No reasons, it’s illogical. And magic is not real because physics prove that much. But apparently you did NOT go to school here in America. The creatures proportions are unnecessary, but again, you weren’t schooled in America obviously, or you were and didn’t pay attention

MYTHICAL and MAGICAL are DIFFERENT things. Unicorns are MYTHICAL. You may have seen them "use" magic in cartoons... but that has nothing to do with their mythological background.

If the Christian god existed, would he use magic? He IS a mythical "creature" after all…

As for magic, I would like you to provide evidence of Physics refuting the existence of it please.

quote:First of all, that’s not evidence; because he could have very well did it to smite you. And, gain, you say what ever he says will be evidence? Ha fuckin ha, you’re FAR MORE INTELLIGENT than EINSTIEN. I’ll leave this one alone. So what if he says, ‘I don’t know’? That’s evidence? HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! That’s some funny shit, again, all rhetoric. No need to reply, thank you. I give up, ok. I’ll argue with Hex, and many others, but I’ll suggest that you not expect anymore replies from me. And what you said about Hex and the others not saying anything to you, indicating that you’re wrong, well you’re ovibously a friend of some sort to them, and may be the fact really is the LOGICAL ONE. They don’t want to make you feel bad, ya know, get your panties al bunched up.

EVERYTHING he says is evidence. That it may be a lie or that he may be incorrect just makes the argument that we must look for more of it. Aren't people called into the stand? They COULD be lying you know. That doesn't mean that what they say is not evidence.

Moreover you skipped the fact that the shit itself is all the evidence we need. How surprising that you skip the part that completely refutes your crappy scenario...

quote:And what you said about the analogy is false, but never mind that. Because like I said, according to his logic, that’s the way things’ll play out. Lack of evidence, indicates no need to believe something. That is the faulty logic that was being debated.

Lack of evidence indicates the need to not believe the case that lacks evidence! Again, I lack evidence that a Mighty Pink Unicorn exists therefore I do not believe in it.

Metalligod

2004-05-16, 01:33

Main Entry: con·fron·ta·tion

Pronunciation: "kän-(")fr&n-'tA-sh&n

Function: noun

Date: 1632

: the act of confronting : the state of being confronted: as a : a face-to-face meeting b : the clashing of forces or ideas:

Main Entry: cast out

Function: transitive verb

Date: 13th century

: to drive out : EXPEL

Main Entry: ex·pel

Pronunciation: ik-'spel

Function: transitive verb

Inflected Form(s): ex·pelled; ex·pel·ling

Etymology: Middle English expellen, from Latin expellere, from ex- + pellere to drive —more at FELT

Date: 14th century

1 : to FORCE out : EJECT <expelled the smoke from her lungs>

2 : to FORCE to leave

Main Entry: [2]force

Function: transitive verb

Inflected Form(s): forced; forc·ing

Date: 14th century

1 : to do VIOLENCE to

Main Entry: vi·o·lence

Pronunciation: 'vI-l&n(t)s, 'vI-&-

Function: noun

Date: 14th century

1 a : exertion of physical force so as to injure or abuse (as in effecting illegal entry into a house) b : an instance of violent treatment or procedure

Hey, Ashes, are you permanently going AWOL?

Rust

2004-05-16, 03:42

God you're laughable!

Force:

"to compel by physical, moral, or intellectual means

3 : to make or cause especially through natural or logical necessity <forced to admit my error>"

Great lets just ignore all other possible definitions when they refute you! http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Are you implying that an OMNIPOTENT GOD has to PHYSICALLY confront the devil to expel him? No. Then you have no argument. Not to mention that the very definition of the word “force” does not mean it is necessarily physical or having to do with violence.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 05-16-2004).]

Metalligod

2004-05-16, 06:07

Main Entry: CAST OUT

Function: transitive VERB

Date: 13th century

: TO DRIVE OUT: EXPEL

Rust

2004-05-16, 06:13

AND? Does it say "physically expel"? Does it it say "to get face to face and force out"? No. Does "force" necessarily mean physical contact? No.

Stick to trying to refute my arguments above; you are obviously terrible at differentiating meanings…

Hexadecimal

2004-05-16, 19:59

Man, this thread blows now. I got a hold of some xannax, some acid, and some liqour, so I'm going to watch the first three seasons of friends jacked off my ass. Maybe I'll see God while I hallucinate? Haha.

Metalligod

2004-05-17, 00:42

quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

Man, this thread blows now. I got a hold of some xannax, some acid, and some liqour, so I'm going to watch the first three seasons of friends jacked off my ass. Maybe I'll see God while I hallucinate? Haha.

Here, here.

I left this thread long ago, I check in now and then to see if you or Ashes has posted. But mainly I've been hangin out in the...Naa, I don't want, ****, to follow.

Rust

2004-05-17, 02:09

I just hope you live up to your end of the deal and leave... http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/rolleyes.gif)

Preston

2004-05-17, 22:14

I have been to church quite a bit, and I think that it is bullshit.

The preacher guy was talking about how you cant suceed without "god"

BS, there are plenty of sucessful people that dont belive in "god", there are even a lot of successful athiests. (SP)

"God" was made up to give people hope, something to live for.

I could go on for ever, but I have to go.

-Preston

KikoSanchez

2004-05-21, 09:57

quote:Originally posted by 4nal Discharg3:

Am I wrong? Prove it..

(remember I asked the question, don't ask me to prove he doesn't, proving negatives is infinently harder)

God is an IT, not a HE. Fucking sexist patriarchal bastards. All of you. If you seriously think god has a penis or vagina, die. If you just say 'he' because you were brought up to call god a 'he', die.

WinAce

2004-05-22, 01:16

quote:Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:

I'd like to point all of you to this critical thinking essay wrote by my friend Allan Glenn:

Refuting Unfalsifiable Claims with Superior, Incompatible Explanations (http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/critical_thinking/unfalsifiable_claims.htm)

I'ts a pretty lengthy read, but a great one. An excellent exercise in rational thought, logic, and reason application to various claims. quote:Originally posted by Hexadecimal:

That was an excellent article; could you possibly tell your friend that it is appreciated by me? I love having the chance to read up on critical thinking skills. quote:Originally posted by ashesofzen:

Send along my compliments as well, if possible. Thanks for the article.

Thanks for the compliments, y'all. They're always appreciated. Glad you liked it.

[This message has been edited by WinAce (edited 05-22-2004).]

ashesofzen

2004-05-22, 07:35

Metalligod:

Now, what I meant... ...it’s not hard at all to go to the dictionary, as you do so often.

So, then, if regular beings can do everything not logically impossible, and a god can do things that we regular beings can't, then a god can do things which are logically impossible? Or, that is, "magic?"

I need you to define words so that I know what exactly you're saying (cf. posts about "atom"). I'd suggest that you read less Anne Rice and more philosophy/theology.

It is rather pleasant for you to suggest that I go to the dictionary to look up the definitions of the words you use (cf. the posts about "atom").

Ok, that’s my fuckin point... ...deities are involved.

Okay...Occam's Razor: The principle states that one should not make more assumptions than the minimum needed... (http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html)

Sure, we can postulate that anything we see is god checking in on us. However, unless there is evidence that each "person, rock, etc." isn't, in fact, a "person, rock, etc." instead of god, then, it fails by Occam's Razor. As long as no evidence, in the scientific (for lack of a better word) sense, then the creation of extra postulates is unnecessary. As long as I have no reason to believe that you've murdered fifty people, I will assume that you haven't. Although I could find fifty people in your area that have died, without any evidence that you've killed them, it's much easier to apply the simplest reason for their death. With enough additional assumptions, the statement that you've killed them has much more weight. However, we "shave off" these assumptions. We are left with the facts; from what's left, at least from what I know, I must state that you haven't.

So, like I said, a lack of evidence is a reason to dismiss any and every idea involving the creation of extra phenomena. Especially when speaking on issues where a deity may be involved.

1. What the Fuck... ....neutrinos come to mind.

1. I thought that we were agreeing that there was no evidence.

2. Negatives cannot be proven. It's technically possible that I have the powers of "O," and just don't realize it. However, read the above statements, and any further reply becomes unnecessary.

3. If you read 1. and 2. (in my previous post) it does make sense. With no evidence, it's entirely sensical to make this statement. Non-contradiction (those are the supporting statements, the "back up").

4. Thinking and logic are not equivalent. Thought can be illogical. You say "I didn't know there existed a thing called 'rule of logic." Evidently then, you don't believe that logic follows rules? As far as I know, logic is rules. People don't have to follow rules when thinking. But, if logic isn't necessarly "by the rules," what exactly is logic?

If that’s what you want to do... ...that you’ve yet to answer.

As you put it (to paraphrase) "LACK OF EVIDENCE PROVES NOTHING BUT THAT THERE IS A LACK OF EVIDENCE." The fact is, you say that the lack of evidence is sufficient reason to believe a deity exists. So, why is the lack of evidence not evidence that you've committed murder?

Also, please repeat your question. I don't feel like hunting for it.

What The Fuck... ...then you’re hopeless.

Wrong.

Again, what the hell... ...there could be a deity’?

What I meant by "...by your thoughts..." was by the (o, look!) evident thought process that you've shown in your posts.

O, and is there any evidence that says you could NOT have killed thirty people? I don't know of any evidence that says either, "there is no way a deity could exist" or "there is no way that Metalligod could have murdered."

Metalligod:God::murder:exist

Back to this, are ye? Wow, it’s amazing! How you lamely avoid questions that you fear to answer or can’t answer.

Or, perhaps, I don't like repeating myself.

As I’ve said... ...for your accusation/reasoning.

If he's killed someone, there must be evidence: For example, how would your scenario deal with the fact there is now a missing person? This would be evidence of a murder (however minor the evidence may be). The simple fact that someone (i.e.: you) can state that the murder happened means that someone (i.e.: you) must have seen it occur. Evidence, "bitch."

As for you NOT killing anyone, that is the whole fucking point! (see above)

3RD... ...for the idea of a deity.

...(see above)

You say ‘Natural Processes’ made us... ...nature to become?

Natural processes: Processes of nature. "There is reason to believe someone/something may have started these 'processes.'" You can't prove that one didn't. However, without some evidence to back up the added phenomenon of a "Beginner," (see above).

There are no REASONS... ...For instance, again, where the hell are the bodies?

Where's god?

That’s not the case with your argument, as I’ve pointed out, your argument has NO BASIS. You have no reasons for your accusations, but there are REASONS to support the idea of a deity. Can you now see the difference? If not, ONE HAS A BASIS, THE OTHER DOESN’T(YOURS). One has REASONS, the other DOES NOT HAVE REASONS.

What basis? The void of evidence? Again, this can just as easily support the assertion that you killed fifty people. That god is possible? Same for your murders.

BTW, what are these ‘Natural Processes’ of which, you speak?

Look at the world around you.

What the hell is your point... ...to do with the message, topic, or discussion?

You postulate a murder where no evidence is left. I believe such a situation is impossible. (see above)

ABTW-When I thought... ...your BS response to this.

"Poison" is a rather broad area. Say, for instance, he wanted an incredibly rare poison--he'd have to order it. Or, if he bought rat poison, a cashier must have checked him out--evidence. And so forth.

No, there are no logical reasons for elves to exist. Santa Clause does not exist, therefore, nor do they. This goes back to what I said about superstitious beliefs. Fear and/or ignorance, causes man, to hype stories that have some truths in them.

O? Santa Claus does not exist? Prove it. Go ahead and try.

Santa Clause... ...was just rich.

O? I'll just play the other team and say "I say that he did have magical powers and flying reindeer."

Magic is not real... ...then just give up.

If magic is not real, what do you call the capabilities of a god who can assume whatever guise pleases him and do other acts that don't fit in with physical law?

And, therefore, if your logic has no faults, then you've just proven (per the statement "Magic is not real, so elves are not real.") that God is not real.

Because I simply refuge to be scrutinized with such INANE questions, your frivolous questions fill me with pure melancholia. Come better, you’ll have to be more clever, cause that shit aint working on me.

What?

Why?

Can you name something logical that is illogical?

What makes you think that the being is outside of logic? What makes it outside of logic?

1. The fact that preternatural abilities aren't consistent with reality.

2. Not being bound by logic, obviously.

First of all I never claimed anything... ...speaking of the ‘Idol Gods’.

Answer it either way. Whichever appeals to you.

(ad hominem)...Now, plz do specify... ...you bitch about…”

First, point out some evidence about neutron stars that is false. Then, I'll back-check it to see what other phenomena and theory it supports.

It is now changed... ...piece of shit.

You said: "ALL SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE ON NEUTRON STARS, ARE MERE CONJECTURES"

And: "“No man has ever gone to a Neutron Star and analyzed its make-up. Not to my knowledge anyway. Is it illogical to believe that Neutron Stars aren’t the way scientists say they are?"

Which would mean that, if you're going to believe that theory on neutron star formation and physics is flawed, you should have a reason. Which is to say, there must be evidence that you are privy to, or a better theory which describes cosmology.

If you want to disbelieve theory without thinking the theory flawed, why disbelieve it in the first place? Am I missing something here?

Yeah... ...you on it.

Again, why bother disbelieving the scientific theory if you don't think it is flawed?

I presumed that you were implying, by asking if it was illogical to disbelieve in theory, that you did. And, I expected that you would have a reason to do so. If you're just going to spout random phrases, warn me first so that I know to not try to figure out what you're thinking, in the future.

Like I said, ‘Babbling Drunk!’ You are the epitome of ignorance(No, this does not mean ignorance could be replaced with word Ashes.) Dumbass!

Well, gee, it's nice of you to have realized that math and language don't work well together. You're welcome.

So I guess... ...anything I’ve said false.

Prove anything you've said false, eh?

I don't know, it's already been done before. Hope you love/pay me for that.

And, by the implied claim that you've not been wrong yet, and the fact that you've admitted to being wrong before (that is, that you've made a false statment), the statement you just made is false.

...First, what the hell would be... ...MISQUOTING ME BITCH!!!!

You know, you're the reason why most people don't like egotistical S.O.B.s.

...I swear to God/the gods/graves/my life, fuck it, I’ll swear on anything, I will obliterate my Totse registration, and never ever re-register. I won’t make another post, I won’t even consider such a thing, I swear I’ll relinquish every thing that is Totse, in my memory. Prove me wrong, do it, I’ll accept all comers, arms open, I dare any of you to refute my words. I’m begging you to, DO IT...

Read this thread.

To Misquote ‘The Greats’-

“...Information’s all I crave…

...Metalligod will die!!!!!!!!”

Don't ever post verse again. You're making 'The Greats' weep.

edit: repairs

[This message has been edited by ashesofzen (edited 05-22-2004).]